The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

This has been mentioned over and over and over and over again.  The primary way to boost or sink the economy is energy costs.

This amazingly simple principal makes it easy for even the most intellectually challenged leader to make choices that help or hinder a country.

A very simple rule of thumb is $.01 change is fuel prices in the US is equivalent to $1.4 Billion dollars added or subtracted from US energy consumption.  (http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-impact-on-the-economy-2011-2)

The singular issue that holds the power of Change, is energy.  It is the singular issue that this president has been at odds with.

January 2009           $1.65
January 2010           $2.57
January 2011           $3.04
January 2012           $3.29

According to CBS $5.00 gas is estimated as early as Memorial Day.  That represents a $239 Billion dollar hemorrhage since January.  

As a family, we spent $4,667 for gas last year, and we don't drive much.  This impact on families and business is so deep and powerful that all other economic issues are shadowed in comparison.

This is the only thing that President Obama needs to fix in order to create jobs, reduce burdens on the people, and spur long term economic growth.  I don't think anyone cares how he does it.  The easiest way would be to reduce regulation, increase domestic drilling on public land, and change the landscape of the speculative market by increasing domestic processing capacity.  But he could also just reduce gasoline taxes, or open reserves, or a dozen other things.  Don't care.

If we continue to see energy costs increase, all of the things that Liberals are worshipful of President Obama for will wilt and die.

QuoteThis has been mentioned over and over and over and over again.  The primary way to boost or sink the economy is energy costs.

This amazingly simple principal makes it easy for even the most intellectually challenged leader to make choices that help or hinder a country.

A very simple rule of thumb is $.01 change is fuel prices in the US is equivalent to $1.4 Billion dollars added or subtracted from US energy consumption.  (http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-impact-on-the-economy-2011-2)

The singular issue that holds the power of Change, is energy.  It is the singular issue that this president has been at odds with.

January 2009           $1.65
January 2010           $2.57
January 2011           $3.04
January 2012           $3.29

According to CBS $5.00 gas is estimated as early as Memorial Day.  That represents a $239 Billion dollar hemorrhage since January. 

As a family, we spent $4,667 for gas last year, and we don't drive much.  This impact on families and business is so deep and powerful that all other economic issues are shadowed in comparison.

This is the only thing that President Obama needs to fix in order to create jobs, reduce burdens on the people, and spur long term economic growth.  I don't think anyone cares how he does it.  The easiest way would be to reduce regulation, increase domestic drilling on public land, and change the landscape of the speculative market by increasing domestic processing capacity.  But he could also just reduce gasoline taxes, or open reserves, or a dozen other things.  Don't care.

If we continue to see energy costs increase, all of the things that Liberals are worshipful of President Obama for will wilt and die.

Do you feel that the raise in gas prices is attributable in toto to president Obama's policies? in part? is it not also at least in part a symptom of the end of the easy availablity of petroleum which would be affecting us even if McCain had won?  This is the big issue of this century and I don't think we can claim that it is really the fault of one president nor one president's job to fix.

Quote from: jacobi on February 15, 2012, 08:44:51 AM
Do you feel that the raise in gas prices is attributable in toto to president Obama's policies? in part? is it not also at least in part a symptom of the end of the easy availablity of petroleum which would be affecting us even if McCain had won?  This is the big issue of this century and I don't think we can claim that it is really the fault of one president nor one president's job to fix.

Not his fault at all.

Just his fault for ignoring.

Someone else set the fire, but that does not mean that he has no responsibility for putting it out.

Blame is not action!

QuoteNot his fault at all.

Just his fault for ignoring.

Someone else set the fire, but that does not mean that he has no responsibility for putting it out.

Blame is not action!

Are you suggesting that we further subsidize the oil industry?  Deregulation? Both?

Quote from: jacobi on February 15, 2012, 08:53:47 AM
Are you suggesting that we further subsidize the oil industry?  Deregulation? Both?

No subsidy.  If you know me by now, you understand my aversion to that. Deregulation?. . .perhaps.  But mostly a reduction in taxation, and restrictions on drilling on public land, and refining.

Any of this is at odds with the administrations ideology, and that is unfortunate.  President obama appointed Steven Chu as energy secretary.

Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.

Before his appointment, he had this to say about his energy philosophy: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

You have to understand that energy costs is a deadly weapon against our economy.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2012, 08:33:20 AM
This has been mentioned over and over and over and over again.  The primary way to boost or sink the economy is energy costs.

This amazingly simple principal makes it easy for even the most intellectually challenged leader to make choices that help or hinder a country.

As a family, we spent $4,667 for gas last year, and we don't drive much.  This impact on families and business is so deep and powerful that all other economic issues are shadowed in comparison.

This is the only thing that President Obama needs to fix in order to create jobs, reduce burdens on the people, and spur long term economic growth.  I don't think anyone cares how he does it.  The easiest way would be to reduce regulation, increase domestic drilling on public land, and change the landscape of the speculative market by increasing domestic processing capacity.  But he could also just reduce gasoline taxes, or open reserves, or a dozen other things.  Don't care.

If we continue to see energy costs increase, all of the things that Liberals are worshipful of President Obama for will wilt and die.

Yes, we have heard it over and over.

Your cost (with average $3 per gallon and 20 mpg) puts you at 31,000 miles per year combined.  Two of you?  More?  15,000 each is quite a bit.  According to my State Farm guy, 12,000 should be the "average" I aspire to.  You could get a Volkswagen diesel or a Toyota Prius and cut that cost in half.  

Started out good... but then the discussion goes off in the weeds...

There are already proven reserves, licensed, permitted areas to drill and produce to the tune of 400% of what the oils currently are exploiting (the 25% we are exploiting).  Why aren't the oils utilizing that before we open up new areas?  More importantly, why aren't they being held accountable for 'sandbagging' us on that deferred production?  If it is as important as you say, then it rises close to the level of a national security issue.  And yet, even though the oils and their Disciples of The Script throw that phrase around like it actually means something - we still don't see (until recently with natural gas) any real effort to increase production to enhance our energy security, let alone bring lower costs.  

You have been in business long enough to know how that works - the old charge what the market will bear theme - so how can you appear to be so blind to it on this one point?

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2012, 09:13:15 AM
No subsidy.  If you know me by now, you understand my aversion to that. Deregulation?. . .perhaps.  But mostly a reduction in taxation, and restrictions on drilling on public land, and refining.

Any of this is at odds with the administrations ideology, and that is unfortunate.  President obama appointed Steven Chu as energy secretary.

Per Obama's SOTU last month: 

Quote"Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years."

As quoted on Treehugger.com, (http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/obamas-state-union-address-open-75-more-land-gas-oil-drilling-double-down-clean-energy.html) who is not particularly happy with his decision to court the oil and gas industries.

PS:

Quote"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade."

--  BO, SOTU

You've got to start going to sources that aren't going to mislead you. Like primary source stuff.  Or, if you think the President does nothing but lie and prevaricate and that anything out of his mouth is untrue -- including this most public of speeches -- you should devise a standard post -- maybe just a smiley with it's tongue hanging out, or with a Hitler mustache or something -- so that we know not to waste time trying to talk you back from the edge.   

We've made no substantive changes to energy policy since the 1970's.  At every turn we hear: "Well it will take 5-10 years to permit and build a mega refinery".  "It will take seven years before the impact is felt from drilling in a new domestic area".

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 10 years ago, we would have a broader supply of oil within our own shores.  I'm not sure I buy into the idea that oil is getting more scarce near as much as I think the traders are as much to blame as a lackadaisical approach to energy the last 30 years.  Solar and wind don't make a practical difference for large-scale transportation purposes (well unless you own a sail boat and you commute to work on it).

So far this administration and Congress have missed an opportunity to overhaul commodity trading regulations which are hurting the average consumer.  With gas at $5.00 a gallon, the consumer economy will rapidly deteriorate.  If I were President Obama and really concerned about re-election, I'd be scrambling right now to figure out how to avert this looming crisis, otherwise he will look like Carter come November.  You simply can't have unemployment hovering around 8% and a major energy crisis (gas going up another $1.70 in a few months is a major crisis for the middle class) and hope to be re-elected.

Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns until recently while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

Edit: Wevus, opening up more reserves is only part of the supply equation, and I do applaud the president for this if he and his administration have actually acted on it.  However, we've got to have more refining and pipeline capacity to eliminate bottlenecks in production and transportation which are creating supply issues.

Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2012, 09:24:33 AM
Per Obama's SOTU last month: 

As quoted on Treehugger.com, (http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/obamas-state-union-address-open-75-more-land-gas-oil-drilling-double-down-clean-energy.html) who is not particularly happy with his decision to court the oil and gas industries.

PS:

--  BO, SOTU

You've got to start going to sources that aren't going to mislead you. Like primary source stuff.  Or, if you think the President does nothing but lie and prevaricate and that anything out of his mouth is untrue -- including this most public of speeches -- you should devise a standard post -- maybe just a smiley with it's tongue hanging out, or with a Hitler mustache or something -- so that we know not to waste time trying to talk you back from the edge.   

That's all fine and dandy, and he has made similar comments in the two previous SOTU speeches, but no action has been taken.  We have seen no decrease in energy prices as a result of any policy of President Obama.  I've learned to "get over" what he "intends to do" and look for actions.

The patient is bleeding, and there is much talk about applying pressure.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2012, 09:26:57 AM
We've made no substantive changes to energy policy since the 1970's.  At every turn we hear: "Well it will take 5-10 years to permit and build a mega refinery".  "It will take seven years before the impact is felt from drilling in a new domestic area".

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 10 years ago, we would have a broader supply of oil within our own shores.  I'm not sure I buy into the idea that oil is getting more scarce near as much as I think the traders are as much to blame as a lackadaisical approach to energy the last 30 years.  Solar and wind don't make a practical difference for large-scale transportation purposes (well unless you own a sail boat and you commute to work on it).

So far this administration and Congress have missed an opportunity to overhaul commodity trading regulations which are hurting the average consumer.  With gas at $5.00 a gallon, the consumer economy will rapidly deteriorate.  If I were President Obama and really concerned about re-election, I'd be scrambling right now to figure out how to avert this looming crisis, otherwise he will look like Carter come November.  You simply can't have unemployment hovering around 8% and a major energy crisis (gas going up another $1.70 in a few months is a major crisis for the middle class) and hope to be re-elected.

Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 32 years ago, we would have a much broader supply of solar and wind energy within our own shores.  We would be gaining the benefit from the activity of developing and deploying those technologies.  The sandbagging of the Reagan and Bush years put us behind to the point where we have pretty much completely missed that market window.  And missed the chance to relieve the oil resources by diversifying our energy basket.  Solar and wind can be used today - in spite of formal resistance - to charge electric vehicles.  With range capacities that would satisfy well over 50% of the transportation needs of the country.

You mean the regulations that allowed oil and gas to be treated as complete commodities?  The ones that completely turned loose the traders to make Enron, Devon, and Williams Bros?  The same regulations that were eliminated under Reagan and Bush?  I can just hear the uproar from the Disciples...if the regulations were put back in place to regulate commodities trading!


Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

By impractical, we can only surmise that means solar and wind - the same energy concerns that have been developed and deployed in the rest of the world, proving beyond any doubt the actual practicality of the two.  While oil (and coal) have worked behind and in front of the scenes to sandbag production and hinder the implementation of solar/wind - buying Congress (as bragged about by Jim Inhofe!) to keep us from benefiting from that economic activity.  And that doesn't even touch on biofuels...  

We will likely never outgrow the need for oil and coal - the energy density is just way too high to ignore or eliminate.  It is the "low hanging fruit" of energy.

We can certainly - easily and cost effectively - diversify and spread the risk of the limited number of energy sources.  As we can now see with the manufacture of wind towers up by Tiger Switch.

Gas... come on, don't bring this week stuff in here.  You proclaim that gas was a 1.65 in January, but you neglected to mention that just a few months earlier gas had reached as high as 4.00 (national average).  Could it be that the market (oil companies) were trying to influence the election in their own way?  Or was it just simple supply and demand that caused the crash in the gas prices in Aug-Dec 2008?  Even if there was a complete tax holiday on for fuel, it would only be about .48 difference.  

Conan hit the nail on the head, it needs to be regulated at the trading level.  24 hour media has made every little earthquake, snow storm, heavy rain, celebrity marriage or divorce a reason for speculators to piss on our parades.

Quote from: JCnOwasso on February 15, 2012, 09:52:10 AM

Conan hit the nail on the head, it needs to be regulated at the trading level.  24 hour media has made every little earthquake, snow storm, heavy rain, celebrity marriage or divorce a reason for speculators to piss on our parades.

It used to be.  Then we got Enron, Devon, and Williams Bros jerking California around with contrived 'shortages'.

What kind of uproar would ensue trying to put it back the way it was?

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2012, 09:48:48 AM

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 32 years ago, we would have a much broader supply of solar and wind energy within our own shores.  We would be gaining the benefit from the activity of developing and deploying those technologies.  The sandbagging of the Reagan and Bush years put us behind to the point where we have pretty much completely missed that market window.  And missed the chance to relieve the oil resources by diversifying our energy basket.  Solar and wind can be used today - in spite of formal resistance - to charge electric vehicles.  With range capacities that would satisfy well over 50% of the transportation needs of the country.

You mean the regulations that allowed oil and gas to be treated as complete commodities?  The ones that completely turned loose the traders to make Enron, Devon, and Williams Bros?  The same regulations that were eliminated under Reagan and Bush?  I can just hear the uproar from the Disciples...if the regulations were put back in place to regulate commodities trading!


Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

By impractical, we can only surmise that means solar and wind - the same energy concerns that have been developed and deployed in the rest of the world, proving beyond any doubt the actual practicality of the two.  While oil (and coal) have worked behind and in front of the scenes to sandbag production and hinder the implementation of solar/wind - buying Congress (as bragged about by Jim Inhofe!) to keep us from benefiting from that economic activity.  And that doesn't even touch on biofuels...  

We will likely never outgrow the need for oil and coal - the energy density is just way too high to ignore or eliminate.  It is the "low hanging fruit" of energy.

We can certainly - easily and cost effectively - diversify and spread the risk of the limited number of energy sources.  As we can now see with the manufacture of wind towers up by Tiger Switch.

I do not disagree with you!  Very good points!

Energy is energy, the source is unimportant.  Unfortunately, as you put it, coal and petroleum are the low hanging fruit.  They are also the only sources capable of stopping the economic hemorrhage.  Long term strategies are, have, and will continue to focus on cleaner energy.

Mr. Chu seems to think that we will only accept green initiatives by force.  Force will not produce the results that some liberals believe it will.  Force will capsize the ship long before it can be converted to run on a different energy source.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2012, 09:26:57 AM

Edit: Wevus, opening up more reserves is only part of the supply equation, and I do applaud the president for this if he and his administration have actually acted on it.  However, we've got to have more refining and pipeline capacity to eliminate bottlenecks in production and transportation which are creating supply issues.

Most folks would agree with that at this point -- outside of the Treehugger.com universe of course. Any energy package has to be comprehensive, to include new drilling but also sustainable options as well (solar, wind, etc).  This also happens to be the way to get everyone to buy in.  Give the fossil fuel folks something to support and the greenies something to support.  I also think you're right, that trading needs to be curtailed, but that's such a huge issue, and one that dovetails strongly with financial reform.  And no one on Wall St. can abide even the relatively weak Dodd-Franks legislation.  I imagine limiting oil and gas traders would also be unpalatable.  Sadly, there is no magic bullet and there is no quick fix, as Gaspar seems to want.  Nothing is going to immediately affect prices.  This shouldn't be a reason for inaction, but it should be a reason to act like adults and take reasonable views of what is possible in the short, medium, and long term.  

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2012, 09:40:06 AM
That's all fine and dandy, and he has made similar comments in the two previous SOTU speeches, but no action has been taken.  

Cite please.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2012, 09:57:31 AM
I do not disagree with you!  Very good points!

Energy is energy, the source is unimportant.  Unfortunately, as you put it, coal and petroleum are the low hanging fruit.  They are also the only sources capable of stopping the economic hemorrhage.  Long term strategies are, have, and will continue to focus on cleaner energy.

Mr. Chu seems to think that we will only accept green initiatives by force.  Force will not produce the results that some liberals believe it will.  Force will capsize the ship long before it can be converted to run on a different energy source.

Wind/solar/biofuels are all technologies that are currently available, cost effective in MANY markets in this country - in particular, when compared to the 'other' darling of big energy, nukular!  And if trading as pure commodities were revoked, the hemorrhaging would be greatly mitigated.  If not eliminated.  Imagine what a little REAL competition would do to the whole market!!

As a country, he is right.  The fight by big oil/coal is couched in terms of "green" being impractical or out of reach, or unable to perform.  Green is not the relevant point.  Cost and economic activity derived from the technologies is more important - green just happens to be a very happy coincidence.  Big oil uses the "G" word to demonize these alternatives by association with what they call wacko environmentalists (WE's).  The rest of the world is able to see past this ploy and recognize and embrace the technologies without the emotional baggage of having a WE association.  We aren't that well evolved, yet.  I keep hoping...

As a society and individuals, there are many who are fighting all right - fighting for those alternative energies.  And using them at whatever level they are able to participate.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2012, 09:48:48 AM

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 32 years ago, we would have a much broader supply of solar and wind energy within our own shores.  We would be gaining the benefit from the activity of developing and deploying those technologies.  The sandbagging of the Reagan and Bush years put us behind to the point where we have pretty much completely missed that market window.  And missed the chance to relieve the oil resources by diversifying our energy basket.  Solar and wind can be used today - in spite of formal resistance - to charge electric vehicles.  With range capacities that would satisfy well over 50% of the transportation needs of the country.

You mean the regulations that allowed oil and gas to be treated as complete commodities?  The ones that completely turned loose the traders to make Enron, Devon, and Williams Bros?  The same regulations that were eliminated under Reagan and Bush?  I can just hear the uproar from the Disciples...if the regulations were put back in place to regulate commodities trading!


Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

By impractical, we can only surmise that means solar and wind - the same energy concerns that have been developed and deployed in the rest of the world, proving beyond any doubt the actual practicality of the two.  While oil (and coal) have worked behind and in front of the scenes to sandbag production and hinder the implementation of solar/wind - buying Congress (as bragged about by Jim Inhofe!) to keep us from benefiting from that economic activity.  And that doesn't even touch on biofuels...  

We will likely never outgrow the need for oil and coal - the energy density is just way too high to ignore or eliminate.  It is the "low hanging fruit" of energy.

We can certainly - easily and cost effectively - diversify and spread the risk of the limited number of energy sources.  As we can now see with the manufacture of wind towers up by Tiger Switch.

If you read my posts carefully, then you are quite well aware that I blame impotent energy policy dating back 30-32 years.

It's no secret that Reagan pretty much gutted funding for renewable energy and tax breaks for developers and end users of solar and wind systems.  Most certainly, we could be ahead of the curve had there been more emphasis on renewable energy in the 1980's.  I'm not aware of any "script" as you keep saying that praises Reagan for energy policy.  The only thing good during his administration was relatively stable energy prices, well at least until $40 oil collapsed to $9 oil which cost many jobs and helped lead to the S & L crisis, at least in major oil producing states like Oklahoma and Texas.

We haven't missed any window of opportunity, Heir, other than reigning in commodity trading (yep, deregulation of that industry was a major boner)  The wind farms already or under construction along the I-40 corridor bear out we haven't missed anything on wind energy.  There was far more movement in biofuels under the Bush admin than anything I've seen in the last three years.  Yet, the problem with what was being done, at least in terms of biodiesel from 2001 to 2008 was many small "pilot" plants rather than large scale refineries which can benefit from economy of scale and which can afford to reinvest in new technologies as it becomes available.  If fuel prices do get to $5.00 a gallon, I'll be really puzzled if biodiesel doesn't finally take off, especially recycled bio-d rather than virgin feed-stock.

That said, take a look at all the real estate it takes to generate a given amount of megawatts of power from wind mills or solar farms.  It's not as efficient use of land space as one single power plant.  I'm not personally aware of any large scale power plants still burning #2 diesel or bunker fuel to generate electricity.  So solar and wind do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil in terms of power generation.  By and large it's coal and natural gas which are making electricity.  

Rather than having an electric car which struggles to keep up to freeway speeds and has a limited range, you can simply bypass needing natural gas-generated electricity to re-charge it and buy a vehicle powered by CNG.  As a commuter, I could get by with an electric car, but it wouldn't be practical for long trips or even running back and forth to OKC in a day.  I'd have to own at least a couple of different cars to support my common driving habits.  If electric cars were all that practical, there would be a whole lot more demand for them than there is at present.  The federal government and state governments have offered massive tax breaks for these vehicles, yet there's still really slack demand for them.

Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2012, 09:59:13 AM
Nothing is going to immediately affect prices.   

I agree with everything else you said except this.  The spec market is predictable.  Open reserves, or approve applications for domestic production and it reacts, even though there may be no immediate effect on the production cost, the market cost decreases.  As a function of that, the foreign producers also react.  A very large part of their mechanism is keeping the shipping, refining, and production levels at a constant so as not to lose bandwidth capabilities.  When we make concessions that have an impact on long-term domestic prices, they lower their prices to maintain production levels.

We've seen in the past how quickly (within months) the price of gas goes down when we release relatively small amounts from our strategic reserves.  Take any step that threatens to lower total long-term costs and that effect is multiplied.

We can very quickly manipulate the cost of energy.  

Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2012, 09:59:13 AM
Most folks would agree with that at this point -- outside of the Treehugger.com universe of course. Any energy package has to be comprehensive, to include new drilling but also sustainable options as well (solar, wind, etc).  This also happens to be the way to get everyone to buy in.  Give the fossil fuel folks something to support and the greenies something to support.  I also think you're right, that trading needs to be curtailed, but that's such a huge issue, and one that dovetails strongly with financial reform.  And no one on Wall St. can abide even the relatively weak Dodd-Franks legislation.  I imagine limiting oil and gas traders would also be unpalatable.  Sadly, there is no magic bullet and there is no quick fix, as Gaspar seems to want.  Nothing is going to immediately affect prices.  This shouldn't be a reason for inaction, but it should be a reason to act like adults and take reasonable views of what is possible in the short, medium, and long term.  

Best line in your whole quote. 

I largely agree with what you are saying here, but our government needs to realize there's a very small segment of Americans making a living profiting off questionable trading practices which are brutalizing the other 300+ million of us.  Our government needs to turn it's attention to the citizens, not be slaves to the dooshes on Wall St.

I'd also give major oil companies huge incentives to plough large amounts of profits into alternative fuels research and refineries if they are not already doing enough to spur big oil to take the lead on alternative internal combustion fuels.  That would be every bit as much of a boost to bio-fuels but would also be a PR boost to the administration and to big oil.

Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2012, 09:59:38 AM
Cite please.

SOTU 2010
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2012, 10:23:57 AM
SOTU 2010
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

Not for that.  For whether he's actually done what he said he'd do. 

Regarding opening offshore areas for oil and gas . . . he did. (http://www.truth-out.org/gulf-reopens-business-obama-administration-accused-low-balling-effects-spill/1327602810) 

"Nearly two years after the March 2010 [Deepwater Horizon] spill, the administration's new policy plans to open 38 million acres offshore of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to possible development in June 2012. The area will be available to deepwater drilling, said a press release from the Department of the Interior."

Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2012, 10:14:37 AM
If you read my posts carefully, then you are quite well aware that I blame impotent energy policy dating back 30-32 years.

It's no secret that Reagan pretty much gutted funding for renewable energy and tax breaks for developers and end users of solar and wind systems.  Most certainly, we could be ahead of the curve had there been more emphasis on renewable energy in the 1980's.  I'm not aware of any "script" as you keep saying that praises Reagan for energy policy.  The only thing good during his administration was relatively stable energy prices, well at least until $40 oil collapsed to $9 oil which cost many jobs and helped lead to the S & L crisis, at least in major oil producing states like Oklahoma and Texas.

We haven't missed any window of opportunity, Heir, other than reigning in commodity trading (yep, deregulation of that industry was a major boner)  The wind farms already or under construction along the I-40 corridor bear out we haven't missed anything on wind energy.  There was far more movement in biofuels under the Bush admin than anything I've seen in the last three years.  Yet, the problem with what was being done, at least in terms of biodiesel from 2001 to 2008 was many small "pilot" plants rather than large scale refineries which can benefit from economy of scale and which can afford to reinvest in new technologies as it becomes available.  If fuel prices do get to $5.00 a gallon, I'll be really puzzled if biodiesel doesn't finally take off, especially recycled bio-d rather than virgin feed-stock.

That said, take a look at all the real estate it takes to generate a given amount of megawatts of power from wind mills or solar farms.  It's not as efficient use of land space as one single power plant.  I'm not personally aware of any large scale power plants still burning #2 diesel or bunker fuel to generate electricity.  So solar and wind do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil in terms of power generation.  By and large it's coal and natural gas which are making electricity.  

Rather than having an electric car which struggles to keep up to freeway speeds and has a limited range, you can simply bypass needing natural gas-generated electricity to re-charge it and buy a vehicle powered by CNG.  As a commuter, I could get by with an electric car, but it wouldn't be practical for long trips or even running back and forth to OKC in a day.  I'd have to own at least a couple of different cars to support my common driving habits.  If electric cars were all that practical, there would be a whole lot more demand for them than there is at present.  The federal government and state governments have offered massive tax breaks for these vehicles, yet there's still really slack demand for them.

I saw the 30 year reference...just want to make sure that the entire world realizes that we had started one direction in the '70s and that was completely reversed in 1981 when the previously installed solar cells on the White House were removed.  Even though only symbolic, their presence was very symbolic, as was their removal.

The missed opportunity was the development and manufacturing of the product.  We are in support mode doing installs of equipment developed and mostly built elsewhere.  The value added of that 'earlier' activity is what I am getting at.

Biofuels at a scale any larger than home experimenter is so far a joke, like we have beat to death here.  There must be some sanity in Federal laws before large scale biofuels can compete with subsidized oil - but it's on the way in the home garage, regardless of DuPont, Hearst, and big oil.  When we as a people demand by election results that the ignorance in our biomass laws be removed, then biofuels will take off like a rocket.

Here is an interesting installation... Coca-Cola solarized their roof.
http://www.uni-solar.com/real-stories-2/coca-cola/

I suspect Tesla would take exception to the characterization about highway speeds and range.  Model S with 84kwh battery is looking very good to me right now.  And it looks good.  0-60 in 4.4 seconds.  I wouldn't know what to do with a "performance" car.

Even the Leaf is said to go 0-60 in about 10 seconds.  

My current traffic pattern takes all electric off the table (except for Tesla).  Prius would work well.  Volkswagen or Subaru diesel would be at least as good.

The Government is still working wind power.  There is still a proposed "green line" that would run from wind farms in the panhandle of OK to the Tennesee Valley Authority (TVA).  A portion of this project is to test the reliability and cleanness of the wind power being transmitted over a long run of transmission lines.

As for alternative fuels and other "green" modes of transportation, until it is proven that a hybrid does not do more harm than good (environmentally), They should be required to put the amount of GH gases produced in the production of the hybrid on the sticker, and then the number of years to "payback" with fuel savings based upon a vehicle with an EPA of 25 MPG.  It would actually be better to pick up one of the new Hyundai's with 35-40mpg than a prius.  Until the Telsa's come down in price, it is not a feasible alternative... and I guarantee if you drive it like they say it will perform (0-60 in 4.4 etc), your range will be pretty limited.  The newer diesel vehicles from VW are probably the best bet.   

Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2012, 10:32:37 AM
Not for that.  For whether he's actually done what he said he'd do. 

Regarding opening offshore areas for oil and gas . . . he did. (http://www.truth-out.org/gulf-reopens-business-obama-administration-accused-low-balling-effects-spill/1327602810) 

"Nearly two years after the March 2010 [Deepwater Horizon] spill, the administration's new policy plans to open 38 million acres offshore of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to possible development in June 2012. The area will be available to deepwater drilling, said a press release from the Department of the Interior."

Yes, I remember.  I even posted about it.  I gave him kudos, but questioned his reasoning for waiting until 2012.  Now those pigeons have come home to roost.   I can't say this enough, INTENSIONS ARE NOT RESULTS!

We've been beaten to a pulp with intension.  Just like when I hire someone to do a job. . .I tell them what needs to get done.  I don't need a story on how they intend to do it, or why they haven't, or when they propose to.  I desire a result.

When we elect a leader, we do so because we believe that his leadership will produce the results we desire, not because he/she means well.

Quote from: we vs us on February 15, 2012, 10:32:37 AM
Not for that.  For whether he's actually done what he said he'd do. 

Regarding opening offshore areas for oil and gas . . . he did. (http://www.truth-out.org/gulf-reopens-business-obama-administration-accused-low-balling-effects-spill/1327602810) 

"Nearly two years after the March 2010 [Deepwater Horizon] spill, the administration's new policy plans to open 38 million acres offshore of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to possible development in June 2012. The area will be available to deepwater drilling, said a press release from the Department of the Interior."

If it comes to pass in June, I applaud the action.  Hasn't happened yet.

Dang. You guys are good. I enjoy it when common perceptions are forced to be defended. It makes us all smarter and more interesting at parties. And in the end I suspect the same conversations are going on at top levels. However, there are more ingredients to the cake than are being listed.

Take one. The simplicity of the argument that a small decrease in cost yields a great increase in positive short term economic return. No doubt. And Obama may do that to get re-elected. But what about the long term implications? Is that a solution? More like a 7% solution of cocaine is a solution for depression.

I was surprised to hear a co-worker this morning, (in response to the prospect of $5 gal gasl.) suggest that people should loosely organize and buy all their gasoline on prescribed days in an effort to disrupt distribution. I'm not sure if she meant it as punishment for oil or an effort to show who swings the bigger stick or some misguided plan to lower the price because of resulting oversupply. But the thought of an organized Tea Party doing such things is pretty interesting. Talk about domestic terrorism. I remember French dairy farmers dumping milk on highways back in the 80's when milk processors were squeezing their profits and increasing their own by utilizing manufactured shortages. It was an economic and pr nightmare and brought about changes.

As usual, and as it always has been, our energy problems require a holistic approach which includes the stimulation of many kinds of energy, not just reducing the price of a gallon of gasl. by fiat or reduction in regulations. Congress is too busy with insider trading, lobbyists, and an implacable attitude towards this president to be useful in any energy solutions.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2012, 10:23:57 AM
SOTU 2010
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

Two new nuclear reactors were just announced a few days ago.  The first in 30 years.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 15, 2012, 10:47:35 AM
I saw the 30 year reference...just want to make sure that the entire world realizes that we had started one direction in the '70s and that was completely reversed in 1981 when the previously installed solar cells on the White House were removed.  Even though only symbolic, their presence was very symbolic, as was their removal.

The missed opportunity was the development and manufacturing of the product.  We are in support mode doing installs of equipment developed and mostly built elsewhere.  The value added of that 'earlier' activity is what I am getting at.

Biofuels at a scale any larger than home experimenter is so far a joke, like we have beat to death here.  There must be some sanity in Federal laws before large scale biofuels can compete with subsidized oil - but it's on the way in the home garage, regardless of DuPont, Hearst, and big oil.  When we as a people demand by election results that the ignorance in our biomass laws be removed, then biofuels will take off like a rocket.

Here is an interesting installation... Coca-Cola solarized their roof.
http://www.uni-solar.com/real-stories-2/coca-cola/

I suspect Tesla would take exception to the characterization about highway speeds and range.  Model S with 84kwh battery is looking very good to me right now.  And it looks good.  0-60 in 4.4 seconds.  I wouldn't know what to do with a "performance" car.

Even the Leaf is said to go 0-60 in about 10 seconds.  

My current traffic pattern takes all electric off the table (except for Tesla).  Prius would work well.  Volkswagen or Subaru diesel would be at least as good.

Actually Reagan had the panels removed in '86 when the WH was re-roofed.  If the system was anything like residential solar at the time, sounds like it may have had the same life-span as residential units ;)  I do get the symbolism it means to you though.

The Tesla is nowhere near practical for the middle class.  The S starts at $69,000 after a federal tax credit of $7500.  Holy crap!  That's not far off what I paid for my house three years ago.  Tesla is a boutique car or statement car.  There's simply nothing practical about it.  Even the low end unit starts at $50K.  The 300 mile range would get me to about Amarillo on my regular jaunts to Colorado and New Mexico before I'd have to plug in for awhile.

The Leaf runs $35K, and I believe that is after the tax credit (feel free to double-check me on that) and has a range 80 to 100 miles.  Looking on Nissan's web site, the battery capacity diminishes over time.  It's still not practical for the masses.  Certainly the price falls into more of a middle class price range but as JCN mentions, you'd be money ahead to buy a gas powered or even a hybrid Hyundai.  The Hybrid Sonata is only $25K and I'd consider it if I didn't already have a Sonata that I have no intentions of replacing for another 5-10 years.

Too bad someone hasn't managed to harness solar on these cars to recharge while it's in the parking lot at work or in the big box parking lot.

Here's what would make electric cars much more practical and available to the masses:

Price point under $30K
Range of 200+ miles
Top speed +/- 75 MPH
Doesn't look or feel like a glorified golf cart

Quote from: Townsend on February 15, 2012, 11:11:17 AM
Two new nuclear reactors were just announced a few days ago.  The first in 30 years.

And those are on permits which were granted two or three decades ago.  The only thing we can thank the O Admin for on those is not quashing the permits.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 15, 2012, 11:11:13 AM

As usual, and as it always has been, our energy problems require a holistic approach which includes the stimulation of many kinds of energy, not just reducing the price of a gallon of gasl. by fiat or reduction in regulations. Congress is too busy with insider trading, lobbyists, and an implacable attitude towards this president to be useful in any energy solutions.

You are preaching to the choir.  I think everyone agrees solid energy policy requires a multi-faceted approach.

In the near term, $5 gas will destroy the already fragile economy.

If gas prices truly are being manipulated to ensure a certain presidential election result as was suggested by another poster earlier, then it's pretty obvious there are some really powerful people in the background trying to ensure Obama is not re-elected.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2012, 11:33:38 AM
And those are on permits which were granted two or three decades ago.  The only thing we can thank the O Admin for on those is not quashing the permits.

Who's admins have quashed them since two or three decades ago?

Quote from: Townsend on February 15, 2012, 11:44:50 AM
Who's admins have quashed them since two or three decades ago?

I must have misunderstood.  I thought you were making it sound as if the Obama administration was responsible for this.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 15, 2012, 12:09:41 PM
I must have misunderstood.  I thought you were making it sound as if the Obama administration was responsible for this.

I'm not sure any admin is responsible for this.  I guess it's whoever controls the regulatory agency and the money folk.

Quote from: Townsend on February 15, 2012, 12:19:41 PM
I'm not sure any admin is responsible for this.  I guess it's whoever controls the regulatory agency and the money folk.

Well, we know one thing for sure.  It's Bush's fault ;)

Surfing on a wave of blame does not give you a pass to fail.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2012, 12:40:07 PM
Surfing on a wave of blame does not give you a pass to fail.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

I've never seen so many people so quick to blame...for blaming.

Its your fault for paying attention. Stop that.

Quote from: JCnOwasso on February 15, 2012, 11:02:39 AM

As for alternative fuels and other "green" modes of transportation, until it is proven that a hybrid does not do more harm than good (environmentally), They should be required to put the amount of GH gases produced in the production of the hybrid on the sticker, and then the number of years to "payback" with fuel savings based upon a vehicle with an EPA of 25 MPG.  It would actually be better to pick up one of the new Hyundai's with 35-40mpg than a prius. 

I have had the economic discussion with 3 family members that have Prius'.  By far and away, it is cheaper to buy a Corolla and get it's 30 - 35 mpg at $15-18k than to buy a Prius at $27-32k.  One has had Corolla AND Prius.  Loves the Prius.  But over the entire life of the car, it is cheaper to drive the Corolla.

There is some market warpage going on with the Prius similar to what happens with Corolla and Civic when gas goes up.  This person has bought Corolla's and Camry's (trades a lot), driven them for a year to 18 months, then sold them for the same price paid originally.  Prius is at that point now and it looks like it will sell for a few hundred more than paid for.  Low mileage, good condition, and all that...  so the Prius is gonna be a negative cost. 

The other two bought and held the cars, so the Corolla would have been cheaper.

Buying a Prius is like buying a BMW - ya do it cause it makes ya feel good, not because it is cost effective transportation.  There are better ways to accomplish the basic goal for both.

Tesla is there, too. 

Quote from: Gaspar on February 15, 2012, 10:23:57 AM
SOTU 2010
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

Or build the two same size solar plants and keep the other half - $7 billion - PLUS the cost of fuel at 0.25 per kwh.

Or twice as many for the same price!  And still keep the 0.25 per kwh.

The discussion of gas vs diesel cars got me to thinking about a diesel cr I would by, a VW Jetta TDI. So I decided to look at some real numbers to compare a gas vs diesel. A base 2012 gas Jetta from Kelly Blue Book in my area is ~ $15,500.00, a diesel is ~ $22,300.00. The average mpg for the gas is 26mpg and the average for the diesel is 34mpg. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Volkswagen2012.shtml (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Volkswagen2012.shtml)

Basing my numbers on 1000 miles per month of combined city and highway, and at current prices in this region, $3.439 for gas and $4.049 for diesel, I would spend $132.00 for gas and $119.00 for diesel for a savings of $13.00/month or $156.00/year for the diesel. It seems that it would take a very long time to get back the savings per month to cover the price difference of $6800.00 between the gas and the diesel.

http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/2012-volkswagen-jetta-365605-vs-2012-volkswagen-jetta-365626-vs-volkswagen-jetta-2012-365621/ (http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/2012-volkswagen-jetta-365605-vs-2012-volkswagen-jetta-365626-vs-volkswagen-jetta-2012-365621/)

Using gasbuddy.com, I realize that the price of diesel in Tulsa is on average ~ $.30 cheaper than Oregon, I find it even harder to get a realistic ROI on owning a diesel over a gas car.

Crap, my Miata splits the difference between the gas and diesel Jetta's mpg, and I can put the top down.

Quote from: dbacks fan on February 16, 2012, 01:21:50 AM
The discussion of gas vs diesel cars got me to thinking about a diesel cr I would by, a VW Jetta TDI. So I decided to look at some real numbers to compare a gas vs diesel. A base 2012 gas Jetta from Kelly Blue Book in my area is ~ $15,500.00, a diesel is ~ $22,300.00. The average mpg for the gas is 26mpg and the average for the diesel is 34mpg. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Volkswagen2012.shtml (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Volkswagen2012.shtml)

Basing my numbers on 1000 miles per month of combined city and highway, and at current prices in this region, $3.439 for gas and $4.049 for diesel, I would spend $132.00 for gas and $119.00 for diesel for a savings of $13.00/month or $156.00/year for the diesel. It seems that it would take a very long time to get back the savings per month to cover the price difference of $6800.00 between the gas and the diesel.

http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/2012-volkswagen-jetta-365605-vs-2012-volkswagen-jetta-365626-vs-volkswagen-jetta-2012-365621/ (http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/2012-volkswagen-jetta-365605-vs-2012-volkswagen-jetta-365626-vs-volkswagen-jetta-2012-365621/)

Using gasbuddy.com, I realize that the price of diesel in Tulsa is on average ~ $.30 cheaper than Oregon, I find it even harder to get a realistic ROI on owning a diesel over a gas car.

Crap, my Miata splits the difference between the gas and diesel Jetta's mpg, and I can put the top down.

I rented a gas Jetta for a week in Ft Worth and got 31 mpg combined - back and forth to Dallas a couple of times, then a lot of driving around town.  Not a definitive mileage, but what I would expect for my driving pattern (highway vs city).  As an aside, I also got 31 mpg in a Ford Fusion for a week and it was a much more comfortable car to drive - for me - than the Jetta.

Haven't driven the new TDI.  MotorWeek last Sunday said their long term testing of Jetta was giving them 38 mpg combined.  Brother had a 1977 VW Rabbit diesel and the range was from 43 low to about 55 hi (highway) - and got over 400,000 miles on the car.  Ran MUCH longer than the same Rabbit in gas.

I want Subaru to start bringing in their diesel for the US market.  The Legacy's I have rented have always been very comfortable and seem to be well built - based on 1 week at a time rental type usage.  Can't remember exact mileage, but I know I was never disappointed (over 25 mpg doesn't disappoint me), so diesel would be even better.

Driving a diesel is pretty much a 'niche' market activity here in the states - it won't pay off for most.  I wouldn't have anything else in a pickup, but in a car, there are many more issues.  It would pay off with my driving, but most of my family/friends would not benefit - actually may cost them more.  I had a 1978 Olds Delta diesel for a couple years.  Loved the car!!  I drove from Denver to Broken Arrow one day and did not have to stop for fuel.  Was on fumes, but made it at about 29 mpg.  Not bad for that lead sled!  At 26,000 miles, the injector pump shelled out - maintenance is one of those issues, even when the engine doesn't have inherent problems like Olds did.  But then, it was a GM, at the time when they were really just starting down their path of self destruction....

VW is really arrogant right now about the TDI.  I have talked to Tulsa and OKC dealers and they have a definite attitude about how their s*** don't stink!  OKC was not as bad as Tulsa with that, though.

Quote from: dbacks fan on February 16, 2012, 01:21:50 AM
The discussion of gas vs diesel cars got me to thinking about a diesel cr I would by, a VW Jetta TDI. So I decided to look at some real numbers to compare a gas vs diesel. A base 2012 gas Jetta from Kelly Blue Book in my area is ~ $15,500.00, a diesel is ~ $22,300.00. The average mpg for the gas is 26mpg and the average for the diesel is 34mpg. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Volkswagen2012.shtml (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Volkswagen2012.shtml)

Basing my numbers on 1000 miles per month of combined city and highway, and at current prices in this region, $3.439 for gas and $4.049 for diesel, I would spend $132.00 for gas and $119.00 for diesel for a savings of $13.00/month or $156.00/year for the diesel. It seems that it would take a very long time to get back the savings per month to cover the price difference of $6800.00 between the gas and the diesel.

http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/2012-volkswagen-jetta-365605-vs-2012-volkswagen-jetta-365626-vs-volkswagen-jetta-2012-365621/ (http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/2012-volkswagen-jetta-365605-vs-2012-volkswagen-jetta-365626-vs-volkswagen-jetta-2012-365621/)

Using gasbuddy.com, I realize that the price of diesel in Tulsa is on average ~ $.30 cheaper than Oregon, I find it even harder to get a realistic ROI on owning a diesel over a gas car.

Crap, my Miata splits the difference between the gas and diesel Jetta's mpg, and I can put the top down.

Good luck trying to buy that $15,500 gas Jetta.  When I was car shopping this time last year, they didn't exist, but you could have the next level up for $17,500 or so.  Great cars and fun to drive, but ultimately I bought a used Sonata.  Apparently each dealer gets a very limited number of loss-leader units.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 16, 2012, 07:43:55 AM
I rented a gas Jetta for a week in Ft Worth and got 31 mpg combined - back and forth to Dallas a couple of times, then a lot of driving around town.  Not a definitive mileage, but what I would expect for my driving pattern (highway vs city).  As an aside, I also got 31 mpg in a Ford Fusion for a week and it was a much more comfortable car to drive - for me - than the Jetta.

Haven't driven the new TDI.  MotorWeek last Sunday said their long term testing of Jetta was giving them 38 mpg combined.  Brother had a 1977 VW Rabbit diesel and the range was from 43 low to about 55 hi (highway) - and got over 400,000 miles on the car.  Ran MUCH longer than the same Rabbit in gas.

This is the reason I say it is better to get a Diesel.  The hybrid has no proven track record for long term performance.  Many only warranty their batteries for the first 100,000 miles(?)  Hyundai has said they have tested the Sonata hybrid to 200,000, but with a diesel you are looking at 200,000 without breaking a sweat.  You look at the overall Carbon emissions from production on and the diesel would look like a hippy treehugger compared to the hybrid.

Quote from: JCnOwasso on February 16, 2012, 09:50:03 AM
This is the reason I say it is better to get a Diesel.  The hybrid has no proven track record for long term performance.  Many only warranty their batteries for the first 100,000 miles(?)  Hyundai has said they have tested the Sonata hybrid to 200,000, but with a diesel you are looking at 200,000 without breaking a sweat.  You look at the overall Carbon emissions from production on and the diesel would look like a hippy treehugger compared to the hybrid.

And that's funny because the prevailing public image on diesels is they are dirty burning vehicles.  Good points JC.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 09:51:03 AM
And that's funny because the prevailing public image on diesels is they are dirty burning vehicles.  Good points JC.

Far cleaner than gasoline and less CO2.  The soot filter is an amazing piece of technology.

The problem with a diesel that runs a good 500,000+ miles is that it outruns its vehicle body. When you build a vehicle so light and cheaply that it rusts out or systems begin to fail at 80-100,000 miles it makes no difference that the engine is still strong. You spend too much to keep the vehicle roadworthy and you foresake newer technologies and comforts that newer vehicles benefit from.

I look forward to some novel thinking on diesel vs hybrid thinking. Diesels are great for torque and longevity but not acceleration and handling. They are heavy and expensive to repair. Electrics are quick at the low end and also durable but seldom need repair. Combine the two in one vehicle and you have a diesel that easily generates power or recharges batteries and is great for heavy use and an electric motor that has immediate torque. Of course with today's techonology that is a very heavy chassis but it merits thought.

If GM were to pursue the "platform" plan I read about they could really affect profitability and the environment. That plan has a chassis/drivetrain that is durable and capable of being re-fitted with a new body at the end of the payment period. You simply take the vehicle to a qualified re-fit center, add the new cabin to fit your lifestyle, rework the loan and be on your way. GM then re-cycles the old body. That justifies a long term investment in diesel or electric motors by the consumer.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 10:12:01 AM
The problem with a diesel that runs a good 500,000+ miles is that it outruns its vehicle body. When you build a vehicle so light and cheaply that it rusts out or systems begin to fail at 80-100,000 miles it makes no difference that the engine is still strong. You spend too much to keep the vehicle roadworthy and you foresake newer technologies and comforts that newer vehicles benefit from.

I look forward to some novel thinking on diesel vs hybrid thinking. Diesels are great for torque and longevity but not acceleration and handling. They are heavy and expensive to repair. Electrics are quick at the low end and also durable but seldom need repair. Combine the two in one vehicle and you have a diesel that easily generates power or recharges batteries and is great for heavy use and an electric motor that has immediate torque. Of course with today's techonology that is a very heavy chassis but it merits thought.

If GM were to pursue the "platform" plan I read about they could really affect profitability and the environment. That plan has a chassis/drivetrain that is durable and capable of being re-fitted with a new body at the end of the payment period. You simply take the vehicle to a qualified re-fit center, add the new cabin to fit your lifestyle, rework the loan and be on your way. GM then re-cycles the old body. That justifies a long term investment in diesel or electric motors by the consumer.

Hybrids are relatively heavy as well due to the batteries and electrical system.  Not sure how long it's been since you've driven a diesel car, but they actually accelerate a whole lot better than they did 30 years ago when they were coming into vogue.  We had a Mercedes 240D and that thing was a total dog. A friend's dad had a VW Dasher diesel and it sucked pretty bad performance-wise as well.

If someone drives 50,000 a year, they won't outrun the useful lifespan of the vehicle systems over 500,000 miles like someone who drives maybe 20,000 simply because age, and not mileage can be every bit as much an enemy to components.

I like diesel as a motor fuel as there are many different synthetic options for making diesel. 

But most people don't drive 50,000 miles a year. They drive 12-15k. Do a quick check on diesel trucks for sale on C-list and eliminate the obvious commercial vehicles. I found quite a few that were still low mileage for diesels, but had ragged out bodies. Even those less than 5 years old had lists of repairs needed and rust showing....but, "engine works great".

I drive a diesel now at work and I love their durability and yes they do have great torque at the lower part of their power band, but they are no comparison with the torque available at 0 rpm that an electric has. Diesel and CNG imo are much more valuable to our future than gasoline.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 11:11:05 AM
But most people don't drive 50,000 miles a year. They drive 12-15k. Do a quick check on diesel trucks for sale on C-list and eliminate the obvious commercial vehicles. I found quite a few that were still low mileage for diesels, but had ragged out bodies. Even those less than 5 years old had lists of repairs needed and rust showing....but, "engine works great".

I drive a diesel now at work and I love their durability and yes they do have great torque at the lower part of their power band, but they are no comparison with the torque available at 0 rpm that an electric has. Diesel and CNG imo are much more valuable to our future than gasoline.

Very few do drive that far.  Just making the point that when it comes to vehicles, age and weather can be more of a factor than miles.  Also helps if a person keeps up with the regular maintenance.  I never seem to see much rust on newer vehicles at least in our area.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 11:28:25 AM
  I never seem to see much rust on newer vehicles at least in our area.

Only if they've relocated from coastal or northern regions.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 10:12:01 AM
The problem with a diesel that runs a good 500,000+ miles is that it outruns its vehicle body. When you build a vehicle so light and cheaply that it rusts out or systems begin to fail at 80-100,000 miles it makes no difference that the engine is still strong. You spend too much to keep the vehicle roadworthy and you foresake newer technologies and comforts that newer vehicles benefit from.

I look forward to some novel thinking on diesel vs hybrid thinking. Diesels are great for torque and longevity but not acceleration and handling. They are heavy and expensive to repair. Electrics are quick at the low end and also durable but seldom need repair. Combine the two in one vehicle and you have a diesel that easily generates power or recharges batteries and is great for heavy use and an electric motor that has immediate torque. Of course with today's techonology that is a very heavy chassis but it merits thought.

If GM were to pursue the "platform" plan I read about they could really affect profitability and the environment. That plan has a chassis/drivetrain that is durable and capable of being re-fitted with a new body at the end of the payment period. You simply take the vehicle to a qualified re-fit center, add the new cabin to fit your lifestyle, rework the loan and be on your way. GM then re-cycles the old body. That justifies a long term investment in diesel or electric motors by the consumer.

Or. . .you could just build a higher quality vehicle.  I had a Mercedes 190TD that I almost put 300k on.  Was never in the shop except for once to replace a shift modulator, and looked like new until the day I sold it. 

Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2012, 12:17:05 PM
Or. . .you could just build a higher quality vehicle.  I had a Mercedes 190TD that I almost put 300k on.  Was never in the shop except for once to replace a shift modulator, and looked like new until the day I sold it. 

I put 278,000 on a 1981 Buick Skylark.  It didn't still look new and it had problems or I'd probably still be driving it.  I am thinking I am close to a record for a '81 X-body though.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 09:49:07 AM
Good luck trying to buy that $15,500 gas Jetta.  When I was car shopping this time last year, they didn't exist, but you could have the next level up for $17,500 or so.  Great cars and fun to drive, but ultimately I bought a used Sonata.  Apparently each dealer gets a very limited number of loss-leader units.

I like the Jetta for it's size and what it does, but right now I'm enjoying my convertible. The funny thing is up here, I have seen over a half dozen diesel Rabbit pickups running around, and they are all in good shape. I will try to get a pic of one the next time I see one. A friend had a 1977 diesel Rabbit four door, and if he had nor wrecked it he would still be driving it today. He got 50 mpg on the highway back in the early 80's.

Anyway, I like diesel cars for practicality, but there doesen't seem to be a real payoff. As for hybrids, buy one if you want to feel good about yourself. As for total electric, I test drove a Chevy Volt and managed to walk away without third degree burns, but it just wasn't practical. If you want to spend the premium for it and you drive less than 50 miles a day, sure it's great. But it's not even something I would consider for anything else but a commuter csr, and for that price, I can buy an old beater Honda for commuting and a newer Miata for fun and road trips and have money left over for a road trip.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2012, 12:17:05 PM
Or. . .you could just build a higher quality vehicle.  I had a Mercedes 190TD that I almost put 300k on.  Was never in the shop except for once to replace a shift modulator, and looked like new until the day I sold it. 

Would you like to sell bar-b-que sauce that lasted 3 times as long as your competitors but cost 4 times as much?  :)

Auto mfrs. need to build in obsolescence or charge higher prices like the German cars. It not only creates brand habits but enables them to sell financing. Right or wrong that's their plan since post WWII. Truthfully there are only so many improvements you can make using existing technology. Our needs have been met when you consider that today's passenger car Detroit steel outhandles a Ferrari from the 1980's and has better climate control to boot. Most cars change very little over a decade though they outwardly go through many "skins". That keeps the prices lower to avoid massive re-tooling.

All I'm saying is that diesels and electric motors outlast their car bodies and their creature comforts. Even in well built cars. Why not capitalize on that and institute replaceable bodies on durable chassis's. It is recycling in a big way and meets both consumer and manufacturer needs. Obviously GM thinks so or they wouldn't be exploring the process.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 01:06:46 PM
Would you like to sell bar-b-que sauce that lasted 3 times as long as your competitors but cost 4 times as much?  :)

Auto mfrs. need to build in obsolescence or charge higher prices like the German cars. It not only creates brand habits but enables them to sell financing. Right or wrong that's their plan since post WWII. Truthfully there are only so many improvements you can make using existing technology. Our needs have been met when you consider that today's passenger car Detroit steel outhandles a Ferrari from the 1980's and has better climate control to boot. Most cars change very little over a decade though they outwardly go through many "skins". That keeps the prices lower to avoid massive re-tooling.

All I'm saying is that diesels and electric motors outlast their car bodies and their creature comforts. Even in well built cars. Why not capitalize on that and institute replaceable bodies on durable chassis's. It is recycling in a big way and meets both consumer and manufacturer needs. Obviously GM thinks so or they wouldn't be exploring the process.

Other than rear quarter panels and the roof, you can already do that with nothing more than a few different sized wrenches, screwdrivers, and in some cases specialty fasteners or adhesives.  If you are good with a plasma cutter and wire-feed welder you can also replace the roof and rear quarters.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 01:06:46 PM
Would you like to sell bar-b-que sauce that lasted 3 times as long as your competitors but cost 4 times as much?  :)

Auto mfrs. need to build in obsolescence or charge higher prices like the German cars. It not only creates brand habits but enables them to sell financing. Right or wrong that's their plan since post WWII. Truthfully there are only so many improvements you can make using existing technology. Our needs have been met when you consider that today's passenger car Detroit steel outhandles a Ferrari from the 1980's and has better climate control to boot. Most cars change very little over a decade though they outwardly go through many "skins". That keeps the prices lower to avoid massive re-tooling.

All I'm saying is that diesels and electric motors outlast their car bodies and their creature comforts. Even in well built cars. Why not capitalize on that and institute replaceable bodies on durable chassis's. It is recycling in a big way and meets both consumer and manufacturer needs. Obviously GM thinks so or they wouldn't be exploring the process.

Tell that to this guy..... http://www.volvocars.com/intl/top/about/news-events/pages/default.aspx?itemid=192 (http://www.volvocars.com/intl/top/about/news-events/pages/default.aspx?itemid=192)

Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 01:11:44 PM
Other than rear quarter panels and the roof, you can already do that.  If you are good with a plasma cutter and wire-feed welder you can also replace the roof and rear quarters.

I wonder when one of the big three will start to produce "Rat Rods"? After all they did the Prowler.

Just find a Chevy Caprice from 1973, chop it, french the rear tail lights, put on some laker pipes and paint flames on the side.

I am not sure you can quantify the arguement with the discussion on trucks and their wear and tear compared to others.  Diesel trucks (3/4 ton and above) are generally more abused than your normally everyday vehicle.  They are farm trucks or work trucks.  If they are farm trucks, you will generally see that they are not "well" taken care of and most likely have been exposed to a combination of chemicals which may not react well with the body.  If they are work trucks, they have probably been driven in every condition and have been exposed to a lot of salt without being properly cleaned.  I can't say that I have seen many rusted out TDI Jetta's or Older Merc's cruisin around.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 01:15:49 PM
I wonder when one of the big three will start to produce "Rat Rods"? After all they did the Prowler.

Just find a Chevy Caprice from 1973, chop it, french the rear tail lights, put on some laker pipes and paint flames on the side.

With the tough economy, I don't see them doing any limited production vanity or statement vehicles.  The Volt is about as close as something coming out of Detroit I'd call a "statement" car.

Interesting story: The Arnie's Bar Mardi Gras float gets built at our shop every year.  The owner of Arnie's found an '86 Mercury woody style station wagon and he and my boss were going to cut it up as a vehicle for a float or give it the "Family Truckster" treatment.  Turns out, due to Cash For Klunkers, apparently many of these old sleds (I would assume a few of the Caprice boats wound up in there too) got crushed and now nice examples are starting to command a little more money.  Funny how that works.  Long and short of it, the woody will remain pristine.  Instead, they put the float elements on my boss' 1953 GMC fire engine.  It's tre' cool!

/drift

Quote from: dbacks fan on February 16, 2012, 01:13:59 PM
Tell that to this guy..... http://www.volvocars.com/intl/top/about/news-events/pages/default.aspx?itemid=192 (http://www.volvocars.com/intl/top/about/news-events/pages/default.aspx?itemid=192)

Not much time before second shift. Is that the million mile guy? I bought the Volvo rep back around 1990. Bought a smart looking 1978 264 with leather and 70,000 miles. Great car with a secure feeling. As bad a rep as the v-6 Renault engine had, I did pretty well with it. Passed it on to the teenager 8 years later with only a water pump and thermostat as expenses (of course i had to take off the intake manifold to get to them!).

But alas, the leather disintegrated, the a/c was always anemic then gave up altogether, the exterior paint faded, the electric window switches failed, the headliner started to sag and the final blow was when the teen rear ended a Ford truck. Still, all it needed was a grille, hood and fender. Sold it to an optimistic friend to rebuild with only 145K on it.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 16, 2012, 01:06:46 PM
Would you like to sell bar-b-que sauce that lasted 3 times as long as your competitors but cost 4 times as much?  :)

Auto mfrs. need to build in obsolescence or charge higher prices like the German cars. It not only creates brand habits but enables them to sell financing. Right or wrong that's their plan since post WWII. Truthfully there are only so many improvements you can make using existing technology. Our needs have been met when you consider that today's passenger car Detroit steel outhandles a Ferrari from the 1980's and has better climate control to boot. Most cars change very little over a decade though they outwardly go through many "skins". That keeps the prices lower to avoid massive re-tooling.

All I'm saying is that diesels and electric motors outlast their car bodies and their creature comforts. Even in well built cars. Why not capitalize on that and institute replaceable bodies on durable chassis's. It is recycling in a big way and meets both consumer and manufacturer needs. Obviously GM thinks so or they wouldn't be exploring the process.

I like the idea of a modular system like that!  Suspension and power plant made to last decades.  Instead of shopping for a new car, just go get a new body/interior/control cluster.  Have kids? Convert your sedan to a mini-van.

Lets start a company. 
TulsaNow Motors

Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2012, 01:33:50 PM
I like the idea of a modular system like that!  Suspension and power plant made to last decades.  Instead of shopping for a new car, just go get a new body/interior/control cluster.  Have kids? Convert your sedan to a mini-van.

Lets start a company. 
TulsaNow Motors

Yeah, there was something on the Discovery channel a few years back called "Future Car" which was a design competition (i think) where they utilize a singular chassis and can interchange bodies.  Was pretty interesting.

Why is it that people feel that the car has to stay, at least for personal transportation?  I don't get it.  Why would we continue to use an engery inefficient machine to prolong an energy inefficient way of life.  You want to live 20 miles from an urban center?  Great!  You're a farmer, not an enginieer, accountant etc.  when you live that far from an urban core.  This faux-rural lifestyle needs to stop.  I wont beat a dead horse any more.

Quote from: jacobi on February 16, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
Why is it that people feel that the car has to stay, at least for personal transportation?  I don't get it.  Why would we continue to use an engery inefficient machine to prolong an energy inefficient way of life.  You want to live 20 miles from an urban center?  Great!  You're a farmer, not an enginieer, accountant etc.  when you live that far from an urban core.  This faux-rural lifestyle needs to stop.  I wont beat a dead horse any more.

Good. 
Because we are free, and until that changes, we will continue to exercise our freedom.

QuoteBecause we are free, and until that changes, we will continue to exercise our freedom.

Are you free?  What do you mean by free?

Quote from: jacobi on February 16, 2012, 02:48:27 PM
Are you free?  What do you mean by free?

I wouldn't say he's free but he's pretty cheap.

Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2012, 01:33:50 PM
I like the idea of a modular system like that!  Suspension and power plant made to last decades.  Instead of shopping for a new car, just go get a new body/interior/control cluster.  Have kids? Convert your sedan to a mini-van.

Lets start a company. 
TulsaNow Motors

Chrysler beat you to it with the K Car in the 80's. One platform, from Omni to New Yorker and the Caravan.

Quote from: jacobi on February 16, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
Why is it that people feel that the car has to stay, at least for personal transportation?  I don't get it.  Why would we continue to use an engery inefficient machine to prolong an energy inefficient way of life.  You want to live 20 miles from an urban center?  Great!  You're a farmer, not an enginieer, accountant etc.  when you live that far from an urban core.  This faux-rural lifestyle needs to stop.  I wont beat a dead horse any more.

I am sure that at some point in our life there will be a technology that will eclipse the car as the means of transportation, but this is not the late 1800's early 1900's where your primary method of transportation was a horse/buggy, it does not take 4 hours to make a 20 mile trip. 

Locations like NYC are limited due to available land and there is only one way to grow, UP.  Tulsa and just about every place in the US has the ability to grow out.  And let's get real, my 20 mile trip to work is still less than any person I know who lives in LA, NYC, DC, and take the metro or other means of public transport.  One brush does not work for every situation. 

Quote from: jacobi on February 16, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
Why is it that people feel that the car has to stay, at least for personal transportation?  I don't get it.  Why would we continue to use an engery inefficient machine to prolong an energy inefficient way of life.  You want to live 20 miles from an urban center?  Great!  You're a farmer, not an enginieer, accountant etc.  when you live that far from an urban core.  This faux-rural lifestyle needs to stop.  I wont beat a dead horse any more.

What if I'm an engineer, accountant, or school teacher that likes to live out in the country in a big house with a nice big lawn that my kids can play football in, and a swimming pool in the back that is so quiet I can float around in the afternoon with a cold beer and hear nothing but the sound grasshoppers and robins?

No one can require me to live anywhere.  

Quote from: Gaspar on February 16, 2012, 04:35:43 PM
No one can require me to live anywhere.  

The invisible hand of the free market already limits your choice, and it's only going to get more punishing as energy prices continue to increase.

In recognition of the dwindling of reasonably priced fossil fuels, I would like it very much if we could put the trolleys back in.

Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2012, 08:32:56 PM
The invisible hand of the free market already limits your choice, and it's only going to get more punishing as energy prices continue to increase.

In recognition of the dwindling of reasonably priced fossil fuels, I would like it very much if we could put the trolleys back in.

The free market limits in both directions.  The price of urban housing appears to frequently trump the cost of commuting, even with a personal automobile.  There is obviously a miles limit depending on the price of gas, housing etc.  The same type of choice is made when choosing to keep an old, paid for car vs. buying a new(er) one with better gas mileage.

I would like the trolleys to return too but I probably won't live long enough to see them here near 111th and Memorial.  We knew we were out in the sticks when we moved here and wanted it that way.  A downtown circulator is a must to get some of the surface parking back to productive use.

Quote from: nathanm on February 16, 2012, 08:32:56 PM
The invisible hand of the free market already limits your choice, and it's only going to get more punishing as energy prices continue to increase.

In recognition of the dwindling of reasonably priced fossil fuels, I would like it very much if we could put the trolleys back in.

I biznitch really loud when fuel prices are way up, but my boss manages to point out that by an odd circumstance, that my income seems pretty much tied to the price of oil, natural gas, and gasoline and rises disproportionately when those prices are up.

And just FYI, there may be a dwindling of reasonably-priced fossil fuels, but there's no dwindling supply to justify what's happening.  The government is allowing totally stupid trading practices that are falsely inflating the price of oil.  Commodity traders who deal in energy get about the same amount of esteem from me as ticket scalpers do. 

Quote from: Conan71 on February 16, 2012, 09:40:55 PM
And just FYI, there may be a dwindling of reasonably-priced fossil fuels, but there's no dwindling supply to justify what's happening.  The government is allowing totally stupid trading practices that are falsely inflating the price of oil.  Commodity traders who deal in energy get about the same amount of esteem from me as ticket scalpers do. 

I don't in any way disagree with your diagnosis of rampant speculation, but I think that the speculators are being aided and abetted by an oil supply that would only be barely meeting (relatively inelastic) demand were it not for the economic crisis. Obviously there's some room for reduction in use, but the figures I've seen recently show that, on a global scale, oil supplies seem constricted. Perhaps we will see some relief if the Brazilians manage to get their ultra-deep play going.

The price of refined products isn't being helped by the growing mismatch between the types of oil refineries were built to process and what they're getting. Again, thanks to supply issues.

Point being that there's a confluence of a large number of issues driving energy prices these days. And yes, speculation is a huge one.

QuoteWhat if I'm an engineer, accountant, or school teacher that likes to live out in the country in a big house with a nice big lawn that my kids can play football in, and a swimming pool in the back that is so quiet I can float around in the afternoon with a cold beer and hear nothing but the sound grasshoppers and robins?

No one can require me to live anywhere.

Who said anything about someONE requiring you to live somewhere?  SomeTHING (the price of oil and subsequently every other commodity) will ultimately decide for you. 

I'm not talking about a government fiat.  I'm saying that living in the deep suburbs is an excess that can be afforded only by cheap access to petroleum.  Rather than looking at ways to reduce the amount of energy (in the more newtonian sense) one uses in ones daily life, people look for ways to game the system.  In the face of a dwindling energy supply, people rush to the electric car rather than reducing the need for a car.

Just saying "I'm free" doesn't exuse your paranoid, destructive, and wasteful choices for your life.  It certainly shouldn't be the part of the public good (government) to subsidize your wasteful lifestyle (gasoline subsidies).

All of this said, I'm sorry I got engaged.  I really hate talking politics on here.  I joined TNF to get the scoop on new housing projects and see what good ideas people had about ways to bring our badass little city together.  For me, energy policy and city planning go hand in hand, and that is why when petroleum is brought up, I feel I need to speak.  I will stay away from your post from now on Gaspar.

Gaspar says: Good.

Quote from: jacobi on February 17, 2012, 11:14:24 AM
Who said anything about someONE requiring you to live somewhere?  SomeTHING (the price of oil and subsequently every other commodity) will ultimately decide for you. 

I'm not talking about a government fiat.  I'm saying that living in the deep suburbs is an excess that can be afforded only by cheap access to petroleum.  Rather than looking at ways to reduce the amount of energy (in the more newtonian sense) one uses in ones daily life, people look for ways to game the system.  In the face of a dwindling energy supply, people rush to the electric car rather than reducing the need for a car.

Just saying "I'm free" doesn't exuse your paranoid, destructive, and wasteful choices for your life.  It certainly shouldn't be the part of the public good (government) to subsidize your wasteful lifestyle (gasoline subsidies).

All of this said, I'm sorry I got engaged.  I really hate talking politics on here.  I joined TNF to get the scoop on new housing projects and see what good ideas people had about ways to bring our badass little city together.  For me, energy policy and city planning go hand in hand, and that is why when petroleum is brought up, I feel I need to speak.  I will stay away from your post from now on Gaspar.

Gaspar says: Good.

He has that effect on people..not just you.

Quote from: jacobi on February 17, 2012, 11:14:24 AM
Who said anything about someONE requiring you to live somewhere?  SomeTHING (the price of oil and subsequently every other commodity) will ultimately decide for you. 

I'm not talking about a government fiat.  I'm saying that living in the deep suburbs is an excess that can be afforded only by cheap access to petroleum.  Rather than looking at ways to reduce the amount of energy (in the more newtonian sense) one uses in ones daily life, people look for ways to game the system.  In the face of a dwindling energy supply, people rush to the electric car rather than reducing the need for a car.

Just saying "I'm free" doesn't exuse your paranoid, destructive, and wasteful choices for your life.  It certainly shouldn't be the part of the public good (government) to subsidize your wasteful lifestyle (gasoline subsidies).

All of this said, I'm sorry I got engaged.  I really hate talking politics on here.  I joined TNF to get the scoop on new housing projects and see what good ideas people had about ways to bring our badass little city together.  For me, energy policy and city planning go hand in hand, and that is why when petroleum is brought up, I feel I need to speak.  I will stay away from your post from now on Gaspar.

Gaspar says: Good.

You're absolutely right, re: energy policy and planning. 

What has stunned me consistently about our little TNF community is how conservative some of our members are on classic questions of government and economy but support a brand of public planning (and end-user energy policy) for Tulsa that is deeply progressive.  I think TNF is part of this subtle but unmistakable shift in our culture away from small town Eisenhower conservatism back to a communitarian urbanism. It's a thing that's going in fits and starts, and obviously is more prevalent to bigger cities than places, say, like Tulsa, but it's definitely happening, it's generational, and is increasing. I also think it's progressive about small questions, about living day to day, rather than being progressive about large questions, about how the country itself should be run.  At the same time, it undeniably touches on things like sustainability, environmentalism, stimulative (yes, stimulative!) but not punitive local tax policy, mass transit and a reduction in car culture, which dovetails with reduced fossil fuel use, etc.  Affordable housing and neighborhood preservation is in there, too.  Local foods, farmer's markets, backyard gardens are, too.  I'd call this Quality-of-Life Progressivism, and despite our differing preferences in national politics, all of us seem to identify strongly with this.

It doesn't mean that all the politics on here are coherent by any stretch, but we all do believe in some very similar ways of living. 




 

I second Hoss.

Different point of views make the world go around.  If everyone believed the same way, things would be pretty boring.  

I am curious if you have taken in to consideration a family, rather than a singular person (it just appears that you are referring to a singular individual).

We Vs Us, i am not sure you can have both a mass transit system/reduced car culture and affordable housing.  Affordable housing happens now because we have such a vast amount of land available and a car culture.  When external stimuli (gas prices, fuel shortage etc) begin to limit the available real estate, it becomes a more expensive proposition the closer you get to the city center.  A great example was the price of Smart Cars during the big fuel jump a few years back and the decline in the price of larger vehicles.  This would happen in the real estate market.   

Quote from: JCnOwasso on February 17, 2012, 02:40:13 PM
We Vs Us, i am not sure you can have both a mass transit system/reduced car culture and affordable housing.  Affordable housing happens now because we have such a vast amount of land available and a car culture.  When external stimuli (gas prices, fuel shortage etc) begin to limit the available real estate, it becomes a more expensive proposition the closer you get to the city center.  A great example was the price of Smart Cars during the big fuel jump a few years back and the decline in the price of larger vehicles.  This would happen in the real estate market.   

I think you're absolutely right, FWIW . . . I mentioned that only because both seem to be central (and competing) concerns of the New Urbanism.

In every place I've ever lived or visited that had successful mass transit, real estate was expensive and density was a fact of life.

Quote from: JCnOwasso on February 17, 2012, 02:40:13 PM
We Vs Us, i am not sure you can have both a mass transit system/reduced car culture and affordable housing.  Affordable housing happens now because we have such a vast amount of land available and a car culture.  When external stimuli (gas prices, fuel shortage etc) begin to limit the available real estate, it becomes a more expensive proposition the closer you get to the city center.  A great example was the price of Smart Cars during the big fuel jump a few years back and the decline in the price of larger vehicles.  This would happen in the real estate market.  

Anyone notice the explosion in scooter sales and scooter riders around the city in 2008?  They couldn't keep the scooters in stock and now I believe they are barely hanging on.  Not even sure if the scooter store on 15th is still in business or not.  I suspect if gas gets back to $5.00 a gallon we will see more scooters coming out of the shed.

I retired my F-150 this time last year and just calculated the fuel savings over the last year of about $2400.  Plus, at it's advanced age, I was spending $500 to $1000 a year on maintenance.  I over-pay my car payment every month so it's actually worked out to be about a break even plus better reliability.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 17, 2012, 03:20:47 PM
Anyone notice the explosion in scooter sales and scooter riders around the city in 2008?  They couldn't keep the scooters in stock and now I believe they are barely hanging on.  Not even sure if the scooter store on 15th is still in business or not.

Not. 

Quote from: Conan71 on February 17, 2012, 03:20:47 PM
Anyone notice the explosion in scooter sales and scooter riders around the city in 2008?  They couldn't keep the scooters in stock and now I believe they are barely hanging on.  Not even sure if the scooter store on 15th is still in business or not.  I suspect if gas gets back to $5.00 a gallon we will see more scooters coming out of the shed.

I retired my F-150 this time last year and just calculated the fuel savings over the last year of about $2400.  Plus, at it's advanced age, I was spending $500 to $1000 a year on maintenance.  I over-pay my car payment every month so it's actually worked out to be about a break even plus better reliability.

About how many miles per year do you drive?

Quote from: jacobi on February 17, 2012, 11:14:24 AM
I'm not talking about a government fiat.  I'm saying that living in the deep suburbs is an excess that can be afforded only by cheap access to petroleum.  Rather than looking at ways to reduce the amount of energy (in the more newtonian sense) one uses in ones daily life, people look for ways to game the system.  In the face of a dwindling energy supply, people rush to the electric car rather than reducing the need for a car.

It doesn't have to be petroleum but what's wrong with increasing the supply of energy.  The alternative is to go back to at least the 19th century, get rid of all access to transportation to individuals and everyone will live within walking distance of work.  Want a steel mill next to your house?

Quote
Just saying "I'm free" doesn't exuse your paranoid, destructive, and wasteful choices for your life.  It certainly shouldn't be the part of the public good (government) to subsidize your wasteful lifestyle (gasoline subsidies).

I am so glad that running a city doesn't take any energy.  Take a look at satellite views of the earth during the dark hours and tell me it's really necessary to light up the world.  Even in urban areas like NYC, people want to go farther than they are willing to walk.  Yes there are buses and electric rail but there are also taxi cabs.  Public transit used to be private, for profit companies but not anymore.  While I think transit subsidies are probably money well spent, they cannot be neglected if one starts talking about subsidies to suburbia.

Quote from: Red Arrow on February 17, 2012, 10:37:36 PM
About how many miles per year do you drive?

30,000 over the last year which was unusually high for me even though the future Mrs. Conan lives in OKC.  I had four or five trips to New Mexico, Colorado, & Wyoming as well this past year which was more than usual.  Other part is, once you are in OKC, everything is freaking 20 miles away, it seems.  That's coming to an end soon though.  If I put more than 15,000 on it this next 12 months, I'll be surprised.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2012, 09:37:04 PM
30,000 over the last year which was unusually high for me even though the future Mrs. Conan lives in OKC.  I had four or five trips to New Mexico, Colorado, & Wyoming as well this past year which was more than usual.  Other part is, once you are in OKC, everything is freaking 20 miles away, it seems.  That's coming to an end soon though.  If I put more than 15,000 on it this next 12 months, I'll be surprised.

I expected it to be a bunch.  I drive 100 mi/week to work and this last year about another 100/week on my own stuff.  At 20 MPG, that doesn't even come to $2400 much less being able to save $2400.

Quote from: Red Arrow on February 19, 2012, 09:47:07 PM
I expected it to be a bunch.  I drive 100 mi/week to work and this last year about another 100/week on my own stuff.  At 20 MPG, that doesn't even come to $2400 much less being able to save $2400.

Saved me about 800 gallons of gas.  The truck averaged 15 MPG, the Sonata 25 MPG.  I figured average fuel price over the last year including traveling at $3.10 a gallon.  I recently picked up an old Western Flyer cruiser bike, I suspect I'll use it for errand running within a few miles of the house.  At least for small things I need to get.  I'll probably also start riding a bike to work more often as the weather warms this year.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 19, 2012, 09:52:09 PM
I recently picked up an old Western Flyer cruiser bike, I suspect I'll use it for errand running within a few miles of the house.  At least for small things I need to get.

Does it have a huge basket on the handlebars like my friends with newspaper routes had?  I looked them up on the internet within the last year.  They are still available.

Edit: The baskets are available.  Don't know about the friends, I've lost contact with those particular friends.

Quote from: Red Arrow on February 19, 2012, 09:58:20 PM
Does it have a huge basket on the handlebars like my friends with newspaper routes had?  I looked them up on the internet within the last year.  They are still available.

Edit: The baskets are available.  Don't know about the friends, I've lost contact with those particular friends.

No, but I can get the basket.  It's still got the luggage rack.  A milk crate fits perfect on the rack.  I found a matching women's bike for FMC as well for Valentines.  She loves it.

I bought many of those paper baskets at OTASCO for $3.50 a pop. They fit well on the front of my chrome Huffy with the headlight, push button horn equipped tank and rear package carrier with red tail lights. The basket would hold about a hundred rubber band wrapped paper missiles (Tulsa Tribunes) tightly packed.

I was a lean, mean, paper delivery machine.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 20, 2012, 08:43:57 AM
I bought many of those paper baskets at OTASCO for $3.50 a pop. They fit well on the front of my chrome Huffy with the headlight, push button horn equipped tank and rear package carrier with red tail lights. The basket would hold about a hundred rubber band wrapped paper missiles (Tulsa Tribunes) tightly packed.

I was a lean, mean, paper delivery machine.

My brother and I threw the Trib.  I had a basket on the front and slung the canvas double side bag over the banana seat for saddle bags.  Great set-up.  You had to be careful about the bag not wearing on the tire or getting into the spokes, but once you got used to it, it was fairly simple.

I already found a new old stock Person's seat for it.  Still debating whether to leave it in all it's glory with the patina or re-paint.  I found a source for all the WF decals.  I've cleaned and re-packed the wheels and cranks and put white walls on it. 

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/WesternFlyer.jpg)

Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 09:08:49 AM
My brother and I threw the Trib.  I had a basket on the front and slung the canvas double side bag over the banana seat for saddle bags.  Great set-up.  You had to be careful about the bag not wearing on the tire or getting into the spokes, but once you got used to it, it was fairly simple.

I already found a new old stock Person's seat for it.  Still debating whether to leave it in all it's glory with the patina or re-paint.  I found a source for all the WF decals.  I've cleaned and re-packed the wheels and cranks and put white walls on it. 

(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/WesternFlyer.jpg)

Nice looking bike. Did you say Western Flyer? FWIW, I would leave it in mostly current condition. I think the value remains higher as well.

I added some metal baskets to the sides of the back wheel to hold more papers, but eventually discarded them in favor of the cotton shoulder bags that cut off your circulation. I sold my Huffy to a church for their youth back in the 70's. I had stripped off most of the 60's glitz and put on "Angel Wing" handle bars and replaced the spring saddle seat with a roll & tuck banana seat. That bike was truly my first love.

Having made a living restoring antique motorcycles, there's a break point between "original paint" and "needs a restoration".  Personally, I love the funky patina.  People know it's not a reproduction when they see it.  I'm thinking about riding the dual centuries at Tulsa Tough this year on my primary road bike, riding this in the townie ride on Sunday, then passing out drunk on crybaby hill afterwards ;)

That said, the Western Flyer Sonic Flyers aren't particularly valuable.  They were built by Murray who also built bikes for JC Higgins, Sears, OTASCO (I think), and some other retailers.  There were thousands upon thousands built.  There's a few models of Western Flyer which bring big money, one is their chopper equivalent to the Schwinn Krate series, and the other, I think, was the X-53.

The Schwinn Phantom is probably the most desirable of all the "tank bikes" and it shows in the price.  $500 to $1500 appears to be the standard.

Quote from: Red Arrow on February 17, 2012, 10:49:41 PM
It doesn't have to be petroleum but what's wrong with increasing the supply of energy. 

Exactly!  That's precisely what solar, wind, and biofuels are all about.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 10:06:13 AM
Having made a living restoring antique motorcycles, there's a break point between "original paint" and "needs a restoration".  Personally, I love the funky patina.  People know it's not a reproduction when they see it.  I'm thinking about riding the dual centuries at Tulsa Tough this year on my primary road bike, riding this in the townie ride on Sunday, then passing out drunk on crybaby hill afterwards ;)

That said, the Western Flyer Sonic Flyers aren't particularly valuable.  They were built by Murray who also built bikes for JC Higgins, Sears, OTASCO (I think), and some other retailers.  There were thousands upon thousands built.  There's a few models of Western Flyer which bring big money, one is their chopper equivalent to the Schwinn Krate series, and the other, I think, was the X-53.

The Schwinn Phantom is probably the most desirable of all the "tank bikes" and it shows in the price.  $500 to $1500 appears to be the standard.

Brother and I both had the J C Higgins version.  There were two headlight lamps in the fixture at the front.  Not sure what happened to the bikes - I think they got tossed when I started driving a car.  Wish I had it back.

Add;
Geez, now I REALLY wish I had it back!!!   $875 !!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1961-JC-Higgins-Sears-Flightliner-bicycle-bike-chrome-red-radio-2-spd-/290631331643?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43aafa2f3b

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 20, 2012, 05:37:39 PM
Brother and I both had the J C Higgins version.  There were two headlight lamps in the fixture at the front.  Not sure what happened to the bikes - I think they got tossed when I started driving a car.  Wish I had it back.

Add;
Geez, now I REALLY wish I had it back!!!   $875 !!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1961-JC-Higgins-Sears-Flightliner-bicycle-bike-chrome-red-radio-2-spd-/290631331643?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43aafa2f3b

Sheesh, take a look at completed auctions, the Higgins models are bringing good money.

Quote from: AquaMan on February 20, 2012, 08:43:57 AM
I bought many of those paper baskets at OTASCO for $3.50 a pop. They fit well on the front of my chrome Huffy with the headlight, push button horn equipped tank and rear package carrier with red tail lights. The basket would hold about a hundred rubber band wrapped paper missiles (Tulsa Tribunes) tightly packed.

I was a lean, mean, paper delivery machine.

I helped 3 friends with their routes (Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, I think it's gone now).  The weekly routes were about 65 papers.  Tuesday was the big day and fitting 65 papers in the big basket was tight.  When the oldest of the 3 turned 16 and had access to the family station wagon, we were awesome.  One driver, one feeding papers to the tailgate, and two throwing papers standing on the tailgate.  We were done in no time.  We all knew each route by memory.  Good if one couldn't make it.

Quote from: Conan71 on February 20, 2012, 09:08:49 AM
(http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/71conan/TN/WesternFlyer.jpg)

My first bicycle was a 20" Higgins bought at Sears for $35.  I remember the price because I had to save up for half of it with my allowance.  It looked a lot like your picture except the tank filled the space between the upper bars and only had a horn, no lights.  Eventually the horn failed and I had to put a bell on the handlebars.  My brother got it as a hand-me-down when a cousin and an uncle both gave me their used "English" bikes.  3 Speed Sturmey-Archer.  The Higgins eventually got converted to a "Sting Ray" look alike.  Dad didn't like the style and only let us do it if we changed it to sell.  My brother and I had it for about a year and then dad got serious and made us sell it.