View Full Version : my letter to Congress..
BUIZILLA
06-06-2008, 03:20 PM
I want to thank you for my yet_to_arrive, and probably won't, stimulus check
it will be used to pay for gas and diesel for mine and my family's small business and work commute, a cost that has tripled in the last few years
that means that the money sent for stimulating the economy will do just that : stimulate the economy of some third world OPEC country
thanx for looking out for us
sincerely, JH & family
And we will pay the principle & interest to China!
joseph m. hahnl
06-07-2008, 09:22 AM
Wouldn't it be great if they opened up the national reserves and flooded the market with crude. Just image. The bottom would fall out and those
B-stards would be left with out a pot to piss in.
Bull Dinky! Our oil barons would just put it on the market at the current price market price, which is set by oil futures speculators! Big biz cares about lining its pockets with not a thought of the average citizens well being! We will just have to adjust like all other nations! Either that or open hunting season on the speculators until they learn to help us and not line their pockets! It is all about wealth and power that I doubt will ever change!
Years ago Cheney hosted a national energy policy meeting. The only people present were oil company CEO's...although later, when questioned by congress, they had "no recollection of being there"!
We reap what we sow, and are definitely experiencing a war on the middle class. Forget for a moment about abortion, gays, and guns...and give some thought to rising costs, lowered wages, our devalued dollar, the trade deficit, national debt, corporate welfare, and special interest groups run amok.
If this is too political, too bad. I feel it is harming our country to have our heads stuck in the sand. Too many people are "scared" to talk about politics, and refuse to have meaningful discourse on possible solutions. Quit bitchin' and get involved...our future and our kid's future is at stake.
Here's a start, if you're so inclined:
The War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back, by Lou Dobbs.
Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - And What We Can Do about It, by Thom Hartmann.
:beer: :popcorn: :beer:
superhatz
06-08-2008, 02:26 AM
Yeah....what Tony said.
gcarter
06-08-2008, 10:44 AM
Tony, if those are links, they're not working.
samjannarone
06-08-2008, 02:53 PM
Still waiting for our check too. Mighty nice of the boys in Washington. Got a letter from my daughter's college re tuition increases....the check won't even come close to covering it.
It does seem, as Buiz and Tony pointed out so clearly, that we are at some sort of a crossroads. Election, war, economy, etc. I watch my daughters laugh and joke constantly with their friends, not a care in the world. Our generation has got to get our sh*t together and fix some of this stuff. It might even be fun:smash:
Tony, if those are links, they're not working.
Not links, George, just book titles that I underlined...I guess because I am a reading and language teacher! I know that they are likely a bit more "left" than what's on your coffee table, but imho they illustrate a trend that we need to be careful of.
Sam, good point about the younger generation not having a care in the world. It is likely that they will be the first generation ever to not have it better than the generation before them. That is also probably a contributing factor to the fact that last year, as a nation, we spent more than we saved...for the first time ever.
My son just finished his third year of college, and is 5 years younger than my daughter. In that five year span, his tuition costs have DOUBLED compared to hers, at the same school.
:beer:
gcarter
06-10-2008, 10:27 AM
Well, here's the Democratic Congress' solution to high gas prices, more taxes!
Will someone explain to me how that will lower prices?
I don't get it.:doh:
June 10, 2008
Senate debates higher profits tax on oil companies
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
With gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon, Senate Democrats want the government to grab some of the billions of dollars in profits being taken in by the major oil companies.
Senators were to vote Tuesday on whether to consider a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies and rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade.
"The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, warning that if energy prices are not reined in "we're going to find ourselves in a deep recession."
But the Democrats are going to have to overcome staunch Republican opposition to any new taxes on the oil industry. The five largest U.S. oil companies earned $36 billion during the first three months of the year.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will need 60 votes Tuesday to proceed with the oil tax legislation in the face of a threatened GOP filibuster. If he doesn't get 60, he likely will pull the bill from the floor.
Only last week, Reid was forced to withdraw a measure aimed at addressing global warming, falling short of the 60 votes needed to advance that legislation.
The Democrats' energy package also would:
_ Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.
_ Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.
_ Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets to curb speculation.
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has acknowledged that Americans are hurting from the high energy costs but strongly opposes the Democrats' response and has ridiculed those who "think we can tax our way out of this problem."
Oil executives, testifying before Congress last month, called the proposed taxes "punitive" and warned that they would discourage domestic oil and gas exploration and production, possibly causing prices to rise instead of fall.
The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the major oil companies, has been reminding lawmakers that in the early 1980s, when the government imposed windfall profits taxes on oil companies domestic oil production dropped and imports increased.
But Democrats reject the comparison.
The Senate proposal would impose a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" and would allow oil companies to avoid paying the tax if they invest the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion.
The tax breaks that would be rescinded, given by Congress over the past five years, are expected to save the five largest oil companies about $17 billion over the next 10 years. The Democratic proposal would funnel the money into tax incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and to promote energy efficiency and conservation.
Most Senate Republicans have a different approach to dealing with the growing energy crisis — pump more oil and gas.
The GOP energy plan, rejected by the Senate last month, calls for opening a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil development and to allow states to opt out of the national moratorium that has been in effect for a quarter century against oil and gas drilling in more than 80 percent of the country's coastal waters.
"Republicans by and large believe that the solution to this problem, in part, is to increase domestic production," said McConnell.
zelatore
06-10-2008, 11:47 AM
So, if I can cut through all the BS, it boils down to this:
The Democrats think the oil companies are making too much profit from American consumers in the current economy and want to tax the companies on this record profit and use that money to support alternative energy research. Alternatively, the oil companies can invest a portion of those record profits in their own research and/or refinery expansion and avoid the extra tax.
The Republicans think the oil companies have the right to make as much as they can and feel that adding to their tax burden will cause them to cut their expansion plans. They think the solution is not in alternative energy sources, but to drill more domestic wells.
Is that about it? 'Cause I can find good and bad in both solutions. Of course, the middle ground is no-man's land. It's far too much 'us vs. them' on the hill to ever expect a reasonable compromise.
gcarter
06-10-2008, 12:45 PM
The tax will be passed on to consumers, like all corporate taxes. So instead of $4.00/gallon gas, it'll be $4.75/gallon gas. Then the Congress will spend the tax revenues on pork barrel spending. No money will be invested into energy alternatives, and no new drilling will take place.
Where are we then?
zelatore
06-10-2008, 01:01 PM
$4.00 gas? Where are you buying $4.00 gas? I wish we were only $4.00 :eek!:
As for the spending habits of congress, or any legislative body for that matter, I have to agree. I'm happy to pay may share of gas tax, but I expect it to be spent on what it's earmarked for, not some other 'worthy cause'.
We've had a lot of that here in CA recently; the state has been dipping into transportation funds to finance other projects when the law clearly says they aren't supposed to do that.
BTW, you might recall we have a Republican Governator these days...there's plenty of this spending on both sides.
gcarter
06-10-2008, 02:58 PM
$4.00 gas? Where are you buying $4.00 gas? I wish we were only $4.00 :eek!:
As for the spending habits of congress, or any legislative body for that matter, I have to agree. I'm happy to pay may share of gas tax, but I expect it to be spent on what it's earmarked for, not some other 'worthy cause'.
We've had a lot of that here in CA recently; the state has been dipping into transportation funds to finance other projects when the law clearly says they aren't supposed to do that.
BTW, you might recall we have a Republican Governator these days...there's plenty of this spending on both sides.
He's a RINO! You probably know what that is......and married to a Kennedy.
But you're right! Too much spending. W should have started veto-ing seven years ago. But he's no conservative.
Lenny
06-10-2008, 10:34 PM
So instead of $4.00/gallon gas, it'll be $4.75/gallon gas.
I wish George. 94 octane today here is $6.15 for one US gallon. (3.78 litres)
$7.36 for one Canadian (Imperial 4.55 litres) gallon... :(
So, my 40 gallon US tank(s) will cost me $246.00 to fill here and I go through 1 1/2 tanks a day when the sun is out. All that in 18 foot boats :eek: Oh, and then there is the lunch. Oh, and the beer :rolleyes:
Let's just say about $500 a day if we take it easy... :bonk:
chappy
06-11-2008, 06:30 AM
Taxing the fuel co's is about a stupid of an idea as I have heard in my short time here on earth.. No more to say on that, it's been beat to death..
Keeping oil in the commodities market will continue to drive the costs up as the speculators drive the pricing.. Remove it, make it a supply and demand item, the cost will drop..
:yes:
gcarter
06-11-2008, 07:17 AM
Last week Elaine and I signed the petition at "Drill Here Drill Now"
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
These sorts of grass roots efforts are what changed the situation in the late '70's, early '80's. Remember the Alaskan Pipeline?, its completion was because of an upheaval of public support like this.
zelatore
06-11-2008, 10:57 AM
Unfortunately, drilling is just a short-term fix. Let's say it takes 2 years to drill and bring that capacity on-line. How much will that drive costs down? Also, assuming it makes a noticeable dent in price at the pump, how much will that just push us back toward every tom, dick, and harry not paying attention to energy consumption? Lastly, how long can this influx of 'new' US oil last? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? At the end of that time, won't we be right back where we are now - likely even worse since by then middle eastern oil will be scarcer as well and we'll have had those intervening years of 'cheap' domestic oil that would take our minds (and research) off alternative sources of energy?
I have ZERO, ABOLUTELY ZERO faith in oil companies to do what's right for anybody or anything but their bottom line. I believe they would gladly shoot their own dog if they thought they could make a buck off the carcass. Unfortunately, that's true of most large companies.
Right now, they are making obscenely huge profits. I'm no economist, but looks to me like they've simply held the same % mark-ups while the base prices have gone up. Hence, they're making the record profits we've seen over the last couple years. And we're still giving them tax BREAKS? OK, if you don't want to add extra taxes to them, that's one thing, but to give them BREAKS from the past normal tax structures? Doesn't that strike anyone as wrong?
And as pointed out, if we add to the oil companies tax burden I’m sure that instead of nibbling into the massive, record breaking profits they are making as the Democrats would like, they’ll just pass it along to the consumers. I don’t know how you stop that. Basic capitalism and the free market says they should be able to do anything they can get away with, but at what cost to the country as a whole? I cringe when I hear the Democrats suggest they want to tax the oil profits above an ‘acceptable’ level. Who wants a politician deciding what’s an acceptable profit? Seems un-American, doesn’t it?
But clearly we have to do something, because as I said earlier, and as we’ve all seen every time we step out the door to go shopping, energy costs are out of control.
I’m hesitantly pro-drilling. I think there probably is a pretty good supply of oil available within our own boarders. The problem with drilling for it is that while I’m sure the oil companies COULD drill for it responsibly, I strongly suspect they WON’T be responsible. I’m sure they’ll cut every corner; bend every rule. Sort of the old Nascar philosophy “it ain’t cheetin’ if you don’t get caught!” I still remember the huge ‘sludge pits’ that were left behind after a number of wells were drilled around my father’s house in the 80’s. Nice stuff. And now, 20+ years later, I bet some of it’s still sitting there. And this was a very small operation, maybe half a dozen wells over a few square miles.
But again, this is just a short term fix.
More importantly, we need to be looking at ways to bring our over-all usage down. And there’s no silver bullet. All I can see is a lot of small options. But to make those small options into bigger ones requires $$$$ spent on research. With the crash in the tech industry, San Jose (silicon valley) is trying to reconfigure itself into the green tech center of the US. They could do it, too. We’ve already got a lot of engineering talent here, all we need is the incentive to switch their focus from one technology to another. That incentive comes in the form of dollars. And that’s what the Democrats were hoping to achieve, however naively, with their bill.
There is one power source we have that can provide a huge reduction in our consumption with current technology, but it scares the bejesus out of people and has plenty of possible problems of it’s own: nuclear. We have the technology to greatly reduce our energy needs while creating no environmental impact using just what we already know. But what do you do with the waste? And how do you protect these power plants from outside threats? (I understand the reactors on the drawing boards are being engineered to withstand an airliner being crashed into them … a sad commentary indeed) Nuclear plants don’t often have failures in other parts of the world where they are used, but they are like airline crashes – they are generally better/safer than the alternatives but when there is a failure it’s on a massive scale.
So I’d love to tell you I had a solution. Just drill more wells, or just tax the oil companies…but it’s obviously not that simple. I’m just some poor schumck who works on boats and I can see that. I just wish the ‘smart’ people we’ve elected (I’ll let you insert your own W jokes here) would stop fighting each other just based on what side of the aisle they sit on and make a real effort to come up with a comprehensive plan. But no, it’s politics as usual, so anything a Democrat says will automatically be denounced by the Republicans as ‘tax and spend’ and anything a Republican says will without forethought be fought tooth and nail by Democrats as pandering to the rich.
George C. and I had a brief discussion off-line where he asked me some questions as his token 'liberal' friend. I had to start my answers by explaining that I may be liberal on some issues, but I’m conservative on others, and don’t support either party outright. I suppose that makes me a fence sitter to some, but I really think the answer to most problems is not at one extreme or the other, but a smart and logical compromise in the middle. Guess that’s why I’ll never be in politics.
We've now ventured far outside the realm of Donzi discussion and firmly into the realm of politics. A big no-no per the board rules. I'm hoping that if we can keep this a civil discourse the moderators will leave the thread up. I'm always willing to listen to well presented logical opposition to my views, and I hope others are as well.
zelatore
06-11-2008, 11:05 AM
After re-reading this and some of my other recent posts, all I can think is:
D@mn, I'm a long-winded SOB! :smash:
(maybe I should go into politics after all:wink:)
gcarter
06-11-2008, 03:42 PM
Twenty years ago there were NO alternatives to petroleum based fuels. Now there MAY be some. But if there is a 20 year year supply in our own borders, that's time to develop the technology, build infrastructure, fill the hardware (vehicle) pipeline, and make a dent in replacing at least a sizeable percentage in what we drive. The Democrats and environmentalists ONLY answer is cut consumption and develop new fuel alternatives. How do you do that w/o completely wrecking the economy? Telling people to stay home and not work? How is this done? I don't know.
Therfe MUST be some intermediate step, and I think it's drill our own oil.
zelatore
06-11-2008, 04:23 PM
The only reason we've seen alternative fuels developed recently is the rising cost of fuel. Small car sales in general and hybrids in particular have seen large spikes in sales recently, and as long as fuel prices stay high we'll continue to see more of these brought to market and sold.
For years greennies tried to blame automakers for the public’s thirst for big gas guzzlers, claiming that because they build big cars that was all people had to choose from. The automakers told us they couldn't sell small cars - it didn't matter what they built, the public bought what it liked. And they were right. When gas was cheap, people bought Tahoes and Suburbans and other big SUV's because the wanted them. Now the public is asking for small economical cars, and the automakers are responding because they see the market.
This may be the only good thing about high fuel prices.
But let's suppose that we suddenly find a vast 20 year supply of cheap domestic oil and our gas prices drop to, say, $3/gal. How fast do you think the public would go back to buying large fuel hogs? And how fast do you think the automakers would again turn their resources toward that market?
But automobiles aside, we have other huge consumers of energy that need to be addressed. Electrical generation, farming, commercial transportation, manufacturing, etc. all use huge amounts of oil. Again, a sudden influx of cheap oil may cut these costs but will stagnate the generation of new technologies to reduce the usage of energy.
Don't get me wrong; I feel it when I put $100 in my truck and it's still not full. And my industry, yacht sales, certainly feels it as well when you can drop $5000+ on a fill-up. I do think the only viable short-term solution is drilling, but I don't think it's a real solution, just a band-aid for the current situation. And while it would feel good to pay $2 or $3/gal. again, I'm not sure that's really a good thing in the bigger picture. Unfortunately, the government and industry aren't especially interested in developing alternative energy sources unless they've got the public yelling and screaming at them.
As you said, 20 years ago we didn't have alternatives. Well, we did. We had nuclear. We had hydro and solar. And they tried electric cars like the EV1. But all those sort of fell by the wayside for various reasons. They're only getting attention - and research money - now because of the cost of oil.
Of particular interest to me is the idea that speculation is driving the cost of oil as high as it is. I don't know enough about the market to understand all this and would appreciate a little education on the topic. I _think_ I can see how it is happening, but I just don't know enough about the big picture to really understand. What would be the ramifications of taking oil from a futures market to a supply and demand market as was suggested? What's involved in doing this? Is it at a national level or does it require international cooperation?
tiger lily
06-11-2008, 04:47 PM
all i know is we(at work) use ALOT of diesel fuel laying down and tieing in new oil and gas line, takes oil to bring it out of the ground..
DonziJon
06-11-2008, 06:49 PM
You know: I'll bet that 99% of the people that are reading this thread HAVE an opinion on this subject. I also think they are reluctant to say something because they are "Afraid " to say something. They will be banned from this site...their friends....here...who they don't really know....because politics are banned here..will shun them. No one wants to be shuned. No one wants to take a stand
Every site I go to BANS Political Talk. This makes perfect sence. The MODS at any given site Really don't need this political crap overunning their site which is devoted to OTHER ...more pleasent interests.
SO: What do we do? You keep your mouths shut and play it safe. :doh:
......................
OH WAIT: The answer to the OIL thing is very simple if you can get on board with the "Hate America First" crowd in this country. WE (US) are the BIG Bullies. SO whynot...IF.. this is true..don't we just go over to Saudi (WE..are their Army) and TAKE OVER. We will Own it. SO: Whats the stinkin problem???
Well maybe we (US) are NOT Bullies.
OK: I"M DEAD. Pull the plug. John :hangum:
I may be liberal on some issues, but I’m conservative on others, and don’t support either party outright. I suppose that makes me a fence sitter to some, but I really think the answer to most problems is not at one extreme or the other, but a smart and logical compromise in the middle. Guess that’s why I’ll never be in politics.
This paragraph is from your windy post, and it is well said. Not all liberals are tree-huggers, just as I'm pretty sure there are plenty of conservatives who are cringing at our current administration's fiscal irresponsibility.
I'm not opposed to drilling ANWR, yet at the same time I'm skeptical of the difference it would make. There seems to be such a discrepancy on forecasting how much oil is really there. How about the oil under Utah...do we drill it, or do we give Utahites(?) a say? If you feel they should have no say, then do you allow the government to divert Great Lakes fresh water to the SW to water the golf courses they build in the middle of the desert?
IMO corporate welfare needs as much revamping as entitlement programs for the poor, elderly, uninsured, and lazy. Giving tax breaks to big oil is ludicrous, as is allowing mega-corporations with overseas headquarters to avoid paying taxes, subsidizing construction of ethanol plants (how is that working out?), not allowing pharmaceuticals to compete on pricing, and allowing an obscene national debt.
Today's politician's cannot look past their noses. The current energy crisis may pale in comparison to the Medicare and Social Security problems we are handing off to our children and theirs. I do not envy the next president's job, as he will inherit some pretty major dilemmas!
Middle ground must be found, as mentioned above. Some worry Obama will turn us into a socialist state. Going to the other extreme, if we allow mega-corporations and special interest groups to dictate national policy, we have fascism. Politicians need to start serving the people, most of whom are centrists, instead of catering to the far left, or the far right.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I feel it is healthy to have discourse on political matters. If we remain partisan and close-minded then problem solving becomes much more difficult.
:beer:
gcarter
06-11-2008, 07:46 PM
Tax breaks for oil companies............
Hmmmmmmm............
Anyone here know what they consist of????? Why they're there?
As someone from Houston, one tax break I remember is the Depletion Allowance. Now every business in existance in this country can depreciate their investments. I don't own the building I'm in, nor does my company need a lot of equipment like fork lifts and processing equipment, but I depreciate my trucks. As I understand it, the Depletion Allowance is the way an oil producer depreciates the oil field it has developed. All fields have a life expectancy, and the producer may have drilled a bunch of dry holes at tremendous expense (expecially off-shore), so the producers are allowed to "depreciate" their investments in exploration and production.
I have a good friend who's an economist, and he and I have gone around and round whether the producers are intitled to this "tax break". I haven't been involved in that industry in over 20 years, but all this stuff has come and gone around before. In the early '80's, the Depletion Allowance was done away with and the same "Excess Profits Tax" Congress is talking about now was actually inacted (if I remember correctly). But a few years later, when prices returned to a more normal level, the rules changed back to as before. Some of you may remember oil prices were just a little lower than they are now ($40.00/barrel) and the same Democratic led Congessional committees were holding the same enquiries into "price gouging" and other threats. Only the names of the participants have changed.
We got out of that situation w/increased production. We can do it again.
smoothie
06-12-2008, 08:30 AM
I just laugh out loud when I read some of these posts...what did you guys exspect to happen when you put a oil baron in command ??? And drilling for domestic oil is playing right into their oily hands like leading sheep to slaughter...havent you had a good enough reaming ??? I normally can only read a couple paragraphs of these "long" posts but I did read all of yours Zelatore..because of the common sense.Check out the history chart for the last 8 years.
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
gcarter
06-12-2008, 09:41 AM
But Smoothie, your argument doesn't hold up historically.....It went up in the Carter years (remember the Iran Debacle and the screwed up rescue attempt?). Also notice in the Carter years (adjusted for inflation) the price was the same as today. Then during the Reagan years, prices fell w/increased domestic production...remember Alaska? Prices stayed pretty constant while Congress and the Environmentalists didn't allow for additional increased domestic exploration and production. Now we are paying the price for it. Basic economics.....increased supply = lower or constant pricing during increased demand periods.
The responsibility lies w/Congress and the environmentalists refusing to allow for additional exploration and production.
smoothie
06-12-2008, 10:25 AM
George, you know as well as I do that Jimmy was set up for failure,And it was later proven that it was manipulated. just like what the next guy is going to get,Funny you left out the Clinton years...Domestic drilling is what the "Oil Barons" want and paid for....
samjannarone
06-12-2008, 10:36 AM
Drilling on W's ranch, in his front yard maybe, would be a good start. Sorry, just kidding.:nilly:
gcarter
06-12-2008, 10:44 AM
George, you know as well as I do that Jimmy was set up for failure,And it was later proven that it was manipulated. just like what the next guy is going to get,Funny you left out the Clinton years...Domestic drilling is what the "Oil Barons" want and paid for....
What was manipulated? 15% inflation? The Iranians attacking our embassy?
The screwed up attempt at rescue? $40.00/barrel oil? Be specific!
Look at your chart, during the Clinton years, prices were going up as we were importing more and more oil every year.
zelatore
06-12-2008, 10:49 AM
the "Oil Barons" want and paid for....
Reminds me of a Robbin Williams line from Man of the Year. The one about how politicians should have to wear suits like nascar race drivers - with patches to show all their sponsorship.
smoothie
06-12-2008, 11:25 AM
Drilling on W's ranch, in his front yard maybe, would be a good start. Sorry, just kidding.:nilly:
Really! and all round his lake where the wedding was...
smoothie
06-12-2008, 11:28 AM
What was manipulated? 15% inflation? The Iranians attacking our embassy?
The screwed up attempt at rescue? $40.00/barrel oil? Be specific!
Look at your chart, during the Clinton years, prices were going up as we were importing more and more oil every year.
Are you looking at the right graph ??? the price of a gallon of gas went down...I remember paying less than a $1.00 a gallon in 1998-1999 ???
VetteLT193
06-12-2008, 11:39 AM
An even more broad picture is the environmentalists and other special interest groups that have pushed for catalytic converters, emissions control systems, etc. Cars in the late 80's got better gas mileage than they do today because of all the extra BS attached to them today. Is it really better for the environment to have lower tailpipe emissions when you combine it lower gas mileage and extra manufacturing processes?
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is all that has happened.
The worst part about this is we should be much better in the gas mileage area than ever considering more aerodynamic body styles and more gears in the tranny.
Here is a random example.
Pontiac Grand Am:
1988 2.3 3 speed auto, 21/31 (25) -- city/hwy (combined)
2000 2.4 4 speed auto, 19/28 (23) -- city/hwy (combined)
I really fail to see a conspiracy with the oil companies and the president.
zelatore
06-12-2008, 12:07 PM
The lower mileage isn't due to a technology issue, but due to a weight and performance issue. Bloat is everywhere.
How many cars are on the market without power everything? You can't buy a basic car today. It's just not what people want. Plus, with relatively cheap fuel, even 'economy' cars are much more powerful than they were 5, 10, or 20 years ago.
Let's compare almost any 1988 car with it’s 2008 equivalent. Say a Corolla. Even that dog is leaps and bounds better than it was 20 years ago. It's got power everything, more HP under the hood, is faster, quieter, safer, and more refined. And it probably weights 25% more because of those improvements.
Do you think anybody would cue up to buy a stripped down light-weight, low-power car ‘like they used to build’? Even if it got 50 or even 60 mpg? Maybe, with gas prices this high, but once things either come down or people adjust to a new price reality I think we’d see that turn into a marketing flop. I seem to recall the Yugo wasn’t a smash success in the US not so long ago, so I can’t blame the auto companies for giving us more of what we want. Well, at least more of what most of us want. (I’m still lusting after a Lotus for track days)
So even though I'm very much an enthusiast driver, I can't complain too much about the greenies killing performance. That was true in the 70's, and even in the 80's, but technology has brought us to a current golden age of horsepower. My BMW gets about 22-23 mpg in real-world 80 mph combined driving. And it makes 300 hp and 300 lb/ft of torque and can run 0-60 times faster than last year's M3. But like everything, it suffers from bloat and weighs a ton. (well, closer to two tons actually)
Want to know what real performance is about? Try a Lotus Exige. It's about the only low-weight car on the US market today. And it's not a powerhouse. But it will lay waste to just about anything else at any price point in the hands of a skilled driver around a race track. And even that is heavy compared to the true lightweights of the 60's. But the Exige is considered to 'primitive' for today's consumer who wants luxury. Well, all things have a cost. And in this case, it's weight.
(myself, I'm doing all I can to support the light-is-right campaign...I'm buying new light-weight track wheels for my BMW next month...:wink:)
Of course, the automobile is just the most obvious component of our energy consumption, and the easiest one for the greens to target. In reality, I think you would find other segments of the economy are bigger users of energy. But it’s not fashionable to attack them when you can go buy a Prius and look down your nose at everybody while pretending to be part of the solution.
handfulz28
06-12-2008, 01:46 PM
Of particular interest to me is the idea that speculation is driving the cost of oil as high as it is. I don't know enough about the market to understand all this and would appreciate a little education on the topic. I _think_ I can see how it is happening, but I just don't know enough about the big picture to really understand. What would be the ramifications of taking oil from a futures market to a supply and demand market as was suggested? What's involved in doing this? Is it at a national level or does it require international cooperation?
From a minimally technical perspective, taking oil from a futures market to users & producers only would definitely change things. The price of an asset should equal the cost to bring that asset to market plus an acceptable profit margin. Even OPEC says this wuold be about $70 these days. Also, if I heard it right, only about 9% of futures contracts traded lead to actual delivery. You can't focus on the 9%, but it's definitely an indicator of how much participation by non-direct stakeholders there is.
From a practical perspective, that's never going to happen. Oil is traded globally, and it's not always traded on an open or even private futures exchange.
As for how speculation is causing oil to be overpriced, consider that there is 10 times more participation in the markets than there was 2 years ago. Those participating have no actual oil to sell, nor do they intend to use what they are buying. Somebody said "oil is going to cost more in the future", investors started believing that, and now everybody and their brother wants a piece of the action. Herd mentality and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The part of the picture that I'm now trying to figure out is that in the futures markets, for every buyer there is a seller. So for all the money that's coming in to get in on the action, somebody is acting as a dealer just feeding the addict. Typically you'd think the only "sellers" in the oil market would be the oil producers. At these prices, I can see them participating on the sell side because even if they have to buy back their contracts at a slightly higher price than they sold (costing them money), they're still making huge profits over what it costs to get the oil to market. I just have to think through and research who else might be dealing the black crack...
gcarter
06-12-2008, 04:09 PM
Are you looking at the right graph ??? the price of a gallon of gas went down...I remember paying less than a $1.00 a gallon in 1998-1999 ???
In '97 the economies of several Asian countries collapsed and by '98, the price of oil had fallen to $9.00/barrel due to excess supply. This is the same thing that wouold happen if the economies China and India would collapse today...there would suddenly be excess supply. It may still happen. Those two countries (and a bunch of others) seriously subsidize the cost of gas and Diesel. Once they're unable to continue that practice, and their citizens are confronted w/the true cost of energy, they will be in serious trouble. The Chinese will be scratching w/their fingernails to NOT do that because the upheavel would probably destroy the government.
gcarter
06-12-2008, 06:06 PM
Take a look at these;
DonziJon
06-12-2008, 06:14 PM
NAPA is advertising "Locking Gas Caps" on TV. I wonder if ONE KEY Fits ALL. :confused: :nilly: John
smoothie
06-13-2008, 07:43 AM
In '97 the economies of several Asian countries collapsed and by '98, the price of oil had fallen to $9.00/barrel due to excess supply. This is the same thing that wouold happen if the economies China and India would collapse today...there would suddenly be excess supply. It may still happen. Those two countries (and a bunch of others) seriously subsidize the cost of gas and Diesel. Once they're unable to continue that practice, and their citizens are confronted w/the true cost of energy, they will be in serious trouble. The Chinese will be scratching w/their fingernails to NOT do that because the upheavel would probably destroy the government.
JMO..But I really dont think that China and India oil demands are enough to make the price of a barrel of oil spike the way it has in the passed year...Still mostly dirt poor with a few rich.
And what I dont understand is where are all the profits are coming from if there is a shortage and higher price for a barrel oil ???
zelatore
06-13-2008, 09:57 AM
George, I've seen many of those cartoons. The best one is #11 - that's exactly what I plan to do! I figure my trip to Powell next week will probably be just about covered by the bribe. Er, I mean refund.
Of course, the fact that I (and apparently several others) haven't actually gotten that money is beside the point.
I haven't gotten mine yet, either. Of course that may be because I wait until the last minute to file, because I usually owe a little. Funny...they don't like it when you owe several years in a row, and even threaten to fine you for the habit.
But...the IRS has no problem using your money for a year and shelling out refunds when they're done with it. I know lots of people who are thrilled with the "refund" idea, and will not even try to listen to the fallacy behind their generosity.
:beer:
zelatore
06-14-2008, 01:15 AM
Well, I didn't file at the VERY last minute. I had a couple days before the deadline this year :hangum:
I suspect that is why I haven't seen anything. I know others, like my brother back in Indiana, have received a check.
As for the 'bonus' of a tax refund, yes - most people don't seem to realize it was their money to start with. Assuming you have the self control to do something good with it, you'd certainly be better off keeping that money in your own pocket and then making a single lump-sum payment at the end of the year. I don't have that kind of self-control I'm afraid...:doh: I do however make quarterly payments just and usually end up owing a couple thousand at the end of the year.
gcarter
06-14-2008, 05:35 AM
They're being sent out according to the last digit of your SS#.....I'm supposed to get mine around the 25th of this month.
gcarter
06-14-2008, 05:56 AM
JMO..But I really dont think that China and India oil demands are enough to make the price of a barrel of oil spike the way it has in the passed year...Still mostly dirt poor with a few rich.
And what I dont understand is where are all the profits are coming from if there is a shortage and higher price for a barrel oil ???
Take a look here;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/07cnd-energy.html
November 7, 2007
Warning on Impact of China and India Oil Demand
By JAD MOUAWAD and JULIA WERDIGIER
LONDON, Nov. 7 — A leading international energy agency today urged oil-producing countries to replenish crude oil inventories in light of a record oil price.
In unusually urgent tones, the International Energy Agency warned that demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030 and could create a supply “crunch” as soon as 2015 if oil producers do not step up production, energy efficiency fails to improve and demand from the two countries is not dampened.
“At current prices the market is signaling that stocks need to be higher, something that is in the power of producers to address,” Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the I.E.A., told journalists at a briefing in London. “Since this time last year, the world outlook has deteriorated. Demand is higher and supply worsening.”
Bolstered by speedy economic development and industrialization, energy demand from Asia has been one of the main contributors to higher oil prices. Over the last two years, China and India accounted for about 70 percent of the increase in energy demand and the world’s energy needs would increase 55 percent by 2030. Another reason for higher prices is investments not made by oil producers, including the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the agency said.
http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/rm/2005/66574.htm
In recent years, China and India have implemented significant changes that allow market forces to play an increasing role in their economies. The leadership in India and China has been successful in reducing poverty and delivering better lives for the many of their citizens. In China, for example, the economy has grown an astounding nine percent per year for the past 25 years. The Indian economy has grown by five percent annually during this same period -- still remarkable -- putting the country in the ranks of what are often termed as the "rapidly industrializing economies."
A greater demand for energy is a natural consequence of expanding economic activity. To support its recent level of economic growth, China's growth rate of the consumption of energy has increased 4.3 percent per year since 1980; India's has been 5.4 percent. The China of 25 years ago was largely energy self-sufficient, but in order to fuel its growing economic engine, an increasing share of petroleum and natural gas inputs must be obtained beyond China's borders. China now imports 40 percent of its oil needs, approximately 3 million barrels per day.
kimjohnandmacy
06-17-2008, 09:53 PM
This morning Bush said each one of us would get $300.00 tax rebate, it was $800.00 but they dropped it to $300.00 If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China , if we spend it on gasoline it will all go to the Arabs, and neither will help the American economy. The way I see it, we need to keep that money here in America, so the only way I can see to keep that money here at home is drink beer or spend it on prostitution. The only two businesses still in the U.S.
chappy
06-18-2008, 06:46 AM
This morning Bush said each one of us would get $300.00 tax rebate, it was $800.00 but they dropped it to $300.00 If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China , if we spend it on gasoline it will all go to the Arabs, and neither will help the American economy. The way I see it, we need to keep that money here in America, so the only way I can see to keep that money here at home is drink beer or spend it on prostitution. The only two businesses still in the U.S.
So do you sell beer, or are you in the mood?:biggrin:
smoothie
06-19-2008, 09:42 AM
Carter,
Your links talk about the growth in the past 20 years...Again,,what about the recent spike in the past year or months...and where are the billions of profits coming from if there really is a shortage???
Heres a link from May with your buddy saying we cant increase oil production.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24660754/
Heres a link form June saying its about time they do up production.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/15/markets/saudi_boost.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes
Sounds like manipulation to me...how about yourself ???
gcarter
06-19-2008, 10:06 AM
I don't think anyone here on this board knows all there is globally. But India and China EACH include more than 1 BILLION citizens. If their industrial growth (never mind the personal growth) has increased 9%/year for 20 years, after just a few years you're talking about some serious numbers.
I suspect it's like a fine balancing act, supply can match demand (never mind the artificiallity of the futures hedging at the NYMEX) but if you increase demand 5%, then there can be a strain on the system.
I remember in the early '70's during the Nixon Administration, price controls were put in place on specific products. What happens in such a situation, the products that have been targeted pricewise disappear from the market because they're not available at the mandated price. This happened yesterday in Mexico. We'll see what happens there shortly.
Carl C
06-19-2008, 11:01 AM
I spent my check on a chartplotter NOT made in China! It was made in Mexico:propeller:. Also filled up the Mustang this morning at $3.95 per gallon. If it stays around $4 I'm cool with it.
roadtrip se
06-19-2008, 03:31 PM
One side says it is the Republican’s fault for being pro-big business and in the oil company’s back pocket.
The other side says it’s the Democrat’s fault for being tree huggers and limiting exploration opportunities that might increase supply.
We all want a quick fix and every politician panders to this desire for an easy solution, especially in an election year. Demos attack the oil company profits and the Repubs talk about a gas tax holiday.
Funny thing, there hasn’t been a real energy policy put in place for almost forty years and there have been a lot of elected officials from both parties that had the opportunity to do so. I sincerely doubt that one will come from the upcoming administration, whichever flavor it might be.
As history has proven, I question whether anything that the government could do that would really have a positive result anyway, other than to limit supply or raise prices further. They could put their bi-partisan hatchets down for a moment and come up with a way to minimize government interference in the energy economy, including regulation, taxes, incentives, and other meddling, but I’ll bet on the snow ball not melting on the front porch in the middle of June, before I put any confidence in the government getting out of the way or creating anything meaningful to help things move along.
One only has to look at what has happened to food prices as a result of the stepped up production of ethanol to understand what a great program created by the government can do to our economy.
Using the car business as an example, something I know well, the market is going to drive change faster than any government mandate any way. The recent rise in CAFÉ law to 35MPG has been eclipsed and become a non-issue by the rush of soccer moms trying to evacuate from their SUVs to something, anything, that will get better mileage and still offer some utility.
As long as prices stay where they are within a dollar or two in either direction, the market will have incentive to come up with ways to wean us off of oil dependence, but it won’t happen over night and their isn’t a magic pill, Democratic or Republican pick your poison, that is going to make a significant difference in the mean time.
Before some one blows holes in my statements or starts taking pot shots at me, I will admit that I have an opinion, this is only an opinion, I could be wrong, and if I am wrong from your point of view, I sincerely pre-apologize for my arrogance, and obviously know-it-all attitude and on-high perspective…. so save your breath. Applause to Zealtore for capturing the essence of this issue a few pages back....
XOXOXOXO,
BUIZILLA
06-19-2008, 04:59 PM
speaking of CAFE and the EPA... I read this press release today...
CAT announced last week they will no longer build Caterpillar truck engines for the USA market, after 2009, for ANY truck manufacturer with USA distribution, the 2010 sniffer parameters are way beyond their current tooling, or wanton care to re-tool..... they are partnering with Navistar instead....
PACCAR, owners of Peterbilt and Kenworth, will build/source their OWN engines from then on out...
zelatore
06-19-2008, 10:21 PM
Applause to Zealtore for capturing the essence of this issue a few pages back....
XOXOXOXO,
So does that also make me a know-it-all, arragant, on-high type? :wink:
All I'm willing to say on the topic this week is gas is cheap(er) in Page! $4.05 - haven't seen that in months back in CA!
RedDog
06-19-2008, 11:50 PM
I have avoided reading this thread since its inception but tonight I thought I would wade in. I couldn't read it all - just too far out there. Here are some thoughts:
1) We haven't been drilling offshore / ANWR for a long time because - well - it would be 10 years before it could come on line. How long have we heard this? I do know that 10 years from now I would like to be able to put some gas in my Donzi and in the current day cars I drive (no classic cars but in 10 years maybe I could have 1).
2) The cry is "let’s tax the oil company profits." Well they are already taxed. They get some tax breaks for investing in crap the Congress switches around on them every year. How can they be expected to make a commitment to alternative fuels research when Congress changes the rules constantly?
3) Corporate tax – let’s raise corporate taxes – windfall taxes on oil corporations. Just what does this mean? Do we want some non-entity to avoid earning something? Why would this non-entity want to earn / possess money? A corporation doesn’t get any benefit from profits. Profits go to the management, employees, and stock holders (and things such as: what the board of directors thinks will better the company – research, capital investment, philanthropy, LOBBISTS TO CONGRESS)
4) Wind-Fall-Taxes (again) – so many in Congress think a tax surcharge/increase/raise/whatever should be applied to the oil industry. Taxes are a cost of business – how could anyone think that increased costs would not be passed on to the consumer. Cost to the consumer equal the cost of the product (which includes taxes) plus a profit margin.
5) What is a wind-fall-profit? Are oil companies making a wind fall profit? Oil companies make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales. Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales. OR Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year. Financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits, the retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion, and information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion.
6) And speaking of new taxes on wind-fall-profits as espoused by the Democratic Party. I assume those would apply to US corporations. Ahhh – we buy much/most of our crude from non-US companies such as BP and CITCO. So, then this proposed taxes would be applied to US companies only. Oh you say taxes could be applied to the imports from foreign companies? Well yeah, but once again those taxes are transferred straight to us the consumer as a cost of them doing business in the US.
Texas Todd strikes again...with a well-stated post. :yes:
I especially like your last paragraph! :pimp:
:beer:
Carl C
06-20-2008, 11:24 AM
The only real solution seems to be for the government to take control of the domestic oil industry which smacks of communism. I still don't understand why we aren't getting discounted oil from Iraq and Kuwait to compensate for our huge expense in protecting those countries.:confused:
gcarter
06-20-2008, 11:33 AM
The only real solution seems to be for the government to take control of the domestic oil industry which smacks of communism.
Carl, if you think that's a good idea, take a look at Mexico! They nationalized their oil in the '30's and ripped off all our oil companies there developing their oil industry. Just Google the subject of Pemex and see the trouble they're in.
But we're importing 60% of our oil from nationalized oil companies, so I guess I fail to see the benefit of doing so, but what do I know? I haven't been envolved in the petroleum industry in over 25 years.
Carl C
06-20-2008, 12:04 PM
Carl, if you think that's a good idea, take a look at Mexico! They nationalized their oil in the '30's and ripped off all our oil companies there developing their oil industry. Just Google the subject of Pemex and see the trouble they're in.
But we're importing 60% of our oil from nationalized oil companies, so I guess I fail to see the benefit of doing so, but what do I know? I haven't been envolved in the petroleum industry in over 25 years. George, I didn't say it was a good idea. I'm all for free enterprise and being able to do well in this country. I am just saying that I don't see any other solution. Increased domestic oil production will just go on the global market at the going rate. It will not be used to supply this country with cheap gas.
gcarter
06-20-2008, 01:36 PM
George, I didn't say it was a good idea. I'm all for free enterprise and being able to do well in this country. I am just saying that I don't see any other solution. Increased domestic oil production will just go on the global market at the going rate. It will not be used to supply this country with cheap gas.
THIS Congress' answer would be to ration gas!! :doh::(
Carl C
06-20-2008, 09:22 PM
THIS Congress' answer would be to ration gas!! :doh::( That would be their way of forcing us to all drive puddle jumpers.:garfield: The real muscle car era might be ending.:garfield::garfield:
Formula Jr
06-20-2008, 10:59 PM
The real muscle car era is just beginning...
roadtrip se
06-21-2008, 11:20 AM
I'm busy working a deal to trade the SRT300 for a Prius with some pretty hot batteries... NOT!
gcarter
06-21-2008, 03:55 PM
The only real solution seems to be for the government to take control of the domestic oil industry which smacks of communism. :
Apparently Carl, you hit it on the head..... :eek!::eek!:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats.html
Rootsy
06-22-2008, 09:40 AM
I did my part to stimulate the economy... the congress critters can go piss up a rope... especially with the introduction of H.R. 6257 - Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/jaroot13/P1080356.jpg
joseph m. hahnl
06-22-2008, 03:58 PM
some of this is just way to lengthy. It is beyond me how some people still hold true to the Jack ass Oh excuse me "Donkey". So any way I think as mindless wonders of what is really going on in the country.We should all get jobs at McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts. Cause quite frankly I don't see any thing left that hasn't been out sourced> My company is still holding on with there niche But I'm sure it won't be long before that is gone.
Being of small mind did you ever think that there is something else going on here? Like Maybe HHO cars that run on water. Not a concept but a reality. It is happening as we speak(or type). So maybe the days of oil are done and this the last goodFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFN. Do not take this as I am calling all of you simple minded I'm not .Just out of the loop
gcarter
06-22-2008, 04:59 PM
Joe, I'm for whatever will work.
I don't think there's a lot of secrets about where we can get energy.
The reality is we have an entire economy that operates on petroleum. We have an existing infrastructure that distributes these petroleum products, and vehicles that burn them.
I don't think it's a good idea to take food out the market to make alcohol. The vast majority of our vehicles don't perform very well on it. And while a blend may reduce our oil imports a very small amount, it's still not a happy solution.
What we need is an alternative fuel that will work seamlessly in our vehicles, that can be transported and distributed in our existing infrastructure, and will work in the vast majority of the existing vehicles.
Anything else will take 20 years to get into general use. If we're talking 20 years then;
First the product has to be developed and proven to work.
A production scheme has to be developed....how long would that take?
An infrastructure would have to be built.
Vehicles that can use it have to be developed.
And a lot of years to let the newly developed vehicles get old enough to work their way down into the hands of folks like me that never buy new cars.
In the mean time we need to know we will have more oil in five or ten years. The only way to do that is to get our heads out of the sand and start drilling.
joseph m. hahnl
06-22-2008, 05:13 PM
http://www.runmycaronwater.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIgOn1kRw5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHXw1QkqV9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k1x896QgM8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHT0hBgVOw&NR=1
Honda Has already released a production model that is an HHO electric hi breed
Do you really think the oil monopoly would want you to know about this.
NO!!!!!!! They Murdered him and stole all his work.
This is the future. With all the information about this subject and working proto types. Have you ever heard One politician even mention it?
Seems there is a lot hidden agenda to me.
gcarter
06-22-2008, 05:43 PM
Joe, I don't know.....there's a whole industry, the industrial gas industry, that would love his ideas if they really worked. Hydrogen is expensive because of production costs and Hydrogen users, industrial users, pay it.
Also, the upcoming fuel cell powered cars will need Hydrogen to operate on.
But again, there's no Hydrogen infrastructure outside of the industrial gas industry. That's one thing that yet has to be developed before they'll be viable. As of now, there's probably no more than two dozen Hydrogen outlets for cars in the country.
joseph m. hahnl
06-22-2008, 06:18 PM
Joe, I don't know.....there's a whole industry, the industrial gas industry, that would love his ideas if they really worked. Hydrogen is expensive because of production costs and Hydrogen users, industrial users, pay it.
Also, the upcoming fuel cell powered cars will need Hydrogen to operate on.
But again, there's no Hydrogen infrastructure outside of the industrial gas industry. That's one thing that yet has to be developed before they'll be viable. As of now, there's probably no more than two dozen Hydrogen outlets for cars in the country.
George I think you missed something. This is HHO Splitting water with electrolysis . there is no fuel other than water. It splits the water at the source. Therefore no need for hydrogen in it's gas state.no need for hydrogen plants storage or any thing just put water in it and the electrolysis does the rest.
Carl C
06-22-2008, 06:29 PM
George I think you missed something. This is HHO Splitting water with electrolysis . there is no fuel other than water. It splits the water at the source. Therefore no need for hydrogen in it's gas state.no need for hydrogen plants storage or any thing just put water in it and the electrolysis does the rest. Joe, I have read that these water fueled cars use more energy in the form of electricity to break down the water than the energy value of the hydrogen produced. Kind of like the corn into ethanol thing.
Jamie, nice addition to the gun safe. You know a 12 guage would probably do more damage in a crowd than an assault rifle.
DonziJon
06-22-2008, 07:11 PM
You know what?? I think EVERYONE on this board would agree...Conservatives and even... Liberals: The U.S. economy is driven by MONEY.. YES??:smash: (I know I'm not offending Liberals on this board because there ARE No Liberals).
OK: Think about it for a moment. If there were a Big NEW energy source out there that has been hidden under a rock......Supressed,..etc............. Don't you think some azzhole entrepenour would have cashed in by now? Oh Wait..he would have been crushed by the .........Mafia. Let's not forget Black Helicopters.
joseph m. hahnl
06-22-2008, 07:17 PM
Joe, I have read that these water fueled cars use more energy in the form of electricity to break down the water than the energy value of the hydrogen produced. Kind of like the corn into ethanol thing.
.
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It produces 4 times as much energy as it uses.
It is simple process of electrolysis which uses low voltage.
The process uses low and high frequency that emits two similar but different types of hydrogen. Together they are like octane ratings.
The process is so simple that there are even people on this site who are working on there own water splitter.
Then there is this guy.
http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=trancedm (http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=trancedm)
As I said Honda has already put this HHO hybrids into production.
So it is available now. According to one of the many links I posted Run my car on water.com Most all of the cars will run on it by 2012
Carl C
06-22-2008, 07:31 PM
I'm not crazy about cut and paste debates, I guess we'll know for sure if we're all driving water powered cars soon. No one can supress this if it's for real. Also maybe when we are destroying billions of gallons of our water every day we may find that it was not such a good idea.
Carl C
06-22-2008, 08:02 PM
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It produces 4 times as much energy as it uses.
It is simple process of electrolysis which uses low voltage.
The process uses low and high frequency that emits two similar but different types of hydrogen. Together they are like octane ratings.
The process is so simple that there are even people on this site who are working on there own water splitter.
Then there is this guy.
http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=trancedm (http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=trancedm)
As I said Honda has already put this HHO hybrids into production.
So it is available now. According to one of the many links I posted Run my car on water.com Most all of the cars will run on it by 2012 Do you realize the implications of this? We could run our boats forevever and wouldn't even need a water tank. Just a raw water pick-up. It's too good to be true.
Rootsy
06-23-2008, 09:09 AM
Do you realize the implications of this? We could run our boats forevever and wouldn't even need a water tank. Just a raw water pick-up. It's too good to be true.
It won't work Carl... if you decompose water the amount of oxygen and hydrogen cannot be produced fast enough to power a vehicle alone. You would need one huge onboard supply of water and one huge power supply to produce gas fast enough.
The little cup bubbling away in the engine compartment isn't anywhere near enough to provide a soul source of fuel to feed an engine.
The chemistry and mathematics of it are plain and simple for anyone that understands what a mole is and can read a periodic table...
Carl C
06-23-2008, 10:31 AM
It won't work Carl... if you decompose water the amount of oxygen and hydrogen cannot be produced fast enough to power a vehicle alone. You would need one huge onboard supply of water and one huge power supply to produce gas fast enough.
The little cup bubbling away in the engine compartment isn't anywhere near enough to provide a soul source of fuel to feed an engine.
The chemistry and mathematics of it are plain and simple for anyone that understands what a mole is and can read a periodic table... The water level would go down a little every time a boat went by! I know it wouldn't work; Not even for a slow boat. Do you think it can work for cars? Would it be wise to destroy water?
gcarter
06-23-2008, 10:57 AM
The water level would go down a little every time a boat went by! I know it wouldn't work; Not even for a slow boat. Do you think it can work for cars? Would it be wise to destroy water?
Fortunately you never destroy water. The gasses recombine as soon as they can.
Rootsy
06-23-2008, 11:21 AM
Fortunately you never destroy water. The gasses recombine as soon as they can.
in a perfect environment where there are no other gases present to form other various oxides... 2H2+O2 + input energy ---> 2H2O + heat
In a "perfect" environment the octane molecule + O2 should yield carbon dioxide and water vapor... But we know it doesn't due to the presence of nitrogen and other various gases found in the air that is ingested into an engine.
Hence everything becomes complicated and fuzzy... :smash:
Lenny
06-23-2008, 11:50 PM
That would be their way of forcing us to all drive puddle jumpers.:garfield: The real muscle car era might be ending.:garfield::garfield:
Which is why the new Vette has 638 HP... :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.