The American dollar takes a fall.

[tightsnheels]

Due to my close proximity to work I have always driven the "family car" a mini van with a large appitite for fuel (16mpg going to and from). So it takes a gallon to work and a gallon home (Yuk!). Warm weather looks promising though and as soon as the rain around here clears the motorcycle (70mpg! Yipee!) gets to spend the summer on the road again. Hoverfly I can understand your situation as that is how my wife wound up in her last job that gave her a fifty mile commute round trip. If prices keep going up you might want to check into a small motorbike or a large scooter (what I have) could save you a lot of cash in the long run. Just a suggestion though.

T&H

[hoverfly]

Due to my close proximity to work I have always driven the "family car" a mini van with a large appitite for fuel (16mpg going to and from). So it takes a gallon to work and a gallon home (Yuk!). Warm weather looks promising though and as soon as the rain around here clears the motorcycle (70mpg! Yipee!) gets to spend the summer on the road again. Hoverfly I can understand your situation as that is how my wife wound up in her last job that gave her a fifty mile commute round trip. If prices keep going up you might want to check into a small motorbike or a large scooter (what I have) could save you a lot of cash in the long run. Just a suggestion though.

T&H

I commute at least 28 miles on the interstate and the rest highway, car pooling would be an option, however I work second shift and nobody is going my way at that time. So scooter is out of the question, moter cycle........I swore off those things long ago to keep my self alive. Driving my GF Civic which has better miliage is also a possablity at times. No way in hell I will sell my Celica, half way through payments right now so I will wait to add an fuel mizer of some kind with 3 or 4 wheels, untill then I am going to have to suck it up.

[johnieheel]

My heart bleeds. In the UK (and most of Europe) petrol is the equivalent of around $8 per US gallon. Largely due to a different tax regime.

I'm not looking for sympathy.

Fortunately the US is also home to good old fashioned entrepreneurs who are prepared to put their money where they think it will make a profit. At present there's a fair bit (nowhere near enough) of investment going into solar energy in the sunbelt states. The energy in the sun falling on just a small fraction of the unused land in Arizona etc is ample to provide ALL the USA's electricity with plenty left over. Most of the kit is pretty low tech too, mirrors, boilers, turbines etc. There is some high tech trickery needed to give effective overnight storage of energy but it's becoming practical and economic now.

The energy left over could provide for a lot of heating and transportation needs that are currently served by oil.

To all red blooded Americans: where would you rather get your energy? From a bunch of unreliable Arabs or Russians? Or right in your own back yard, done with goold old American knowhow and investment.

Take a decent chunk of the US demand for oil out of the world equation and OPEC will be pleading poverty and begging for mercy.

Northern Europe doesn't have such attractive options - not enough sun. Southern Europe, around the Mediterranean and into north Africa has good conditions too. Though this is politically more fragmented than the US. Countries such as Israel, Egypt, Morocco have got plenty of virtually unpopulated sunny areas. Israel is starting to invest, I don't know about the others.

Thats a great plan. It's just to bad our USA politicians are involved in oil and do everything in there power to prevent this kind of energy from being produced. I have even seen cars run off water. Our government is NOT for the people as some of you from across the pond have been led to believe. They are out for them selves and thats it!

[at9]

Thats a great plan. It's just to bad our USA politicians are involved in oil and do everything in there power to prevent this kind of energy from being produced. .....!

Johnie, you and I are probably near opposite ends of the political spectrum - I'm fairly middle of the road in the UK = bleeding heart liberal, verging on dangerous commie, in the US. Let's hope that enterprise will win over government in the US on this one. The trouble is that it still needs a fairly small amount of government input, mainly to subsidise the grid interconnects, in the early days of big solar programme. The US power grid is close to breaking anyway and there is nithing like enough capacity to send all that power from the south to the north.

Also the conservatives won't like it because it's too green and Al Gore will like it:silly: That's why I made the case in terms of economics and energy security.

The US can put a man on the moon, design and make the chips that make all the world's computers tick and all sorts of other impressive things. There are few technical difficulties for the US to achieve energy self sufficiency by 2050 along with massive CO2 reductions. The economics are positive - GDP and standard of living should both be positive with massive investment in solar. But the technology isn't very sexy - lots of relatively small low tech units spread acorss the deserts - and the political will is severely lacking.

[Arctic]

A whole range of economic effects, from longer commute times to global manufacturing competition, are predicated on cheap transportation. If gasoline goes to $6/gallon, it will be economically very destructive.

It has been said before but where I live, gas is $9 a gal. And that is not a problem at all. Not to say that I enjoy paying $130 to fill up my family car, but it's an efficient diesel that runs 700 miles on a tank. Did you guys know by the way that diesel cars in Europe are typically more powerful and fun to drive than traditional gas cars? So you can have it both ways: cheap and powerful.

Same thing for housing, and I can compare now because I am relocating to the US. I spent the better part of last week seeing houses in NY and CT, and I was baffled how poorly they are built. $300, $400, $500 a month, on average, in heating bills seems to be common. Seriously? In Northern Europe, where the climate is a great deal harsher than in NY or CT, I don't manage to get even to $100 for a similar sized house. Sure, the isolation is over a foot thick, and it is heated by a geothermal heat pump, and although that has cost something the running costs are low.

So, don't worry about rising energy costs. It's just a matter that will take some time. It has been cheaper to heat and cool a badly insulated house, than to insulate it. Same thing for cars: there has been no need to spend $2000 extra on a diesel powered car since gas is cheap.

Now insulation will be something that you guys need to do as well, and think about more efficient cars with diesel engines (or hybrids, if you like that more for similar efficiency). For a country with $40k of purchasing power per head per year, $5k on insulation or $2k for a better car won't be a problem.

[yozz]

Also in Holland the cost of gasoline is very high. At the discount station my last fill went for $ 8.70 the gallon. The only short term solution for this is to make sure you live very close to your work. This doesn't improve mobility in the job market, and when both partners pursue a career there is definitely a problem. There are two possible solutions: electric cars and hydrogen fueled cars. The problem with electric cars is that the battery technology isn't up to it. The problem with hydrogen cars is that there is no distribution system for the hydrogen. In principle one could fill a desert with solar cells and have them convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then transport the hydrogen to wherever it is needed and then use it there. But there is a vicious circle involved. If you can only buy your hydrogen at a selective number of pumps near some big cities and possibly along a few highways, everybody will be waiting buying such a car. But if nobody is buying who is going to invest in those pumps? In short: we have dug ourselves into a big hole. But something has to happen but the oil will be running out even further and the Chinese and people from India will be getting more cars while we are paying them more and more money because their products are cheaper than our products (are they really when we consider all secondary costs?). Of course it would already help to get a government that doesn't profit from the oil industry. Or the weapons industry that is very eager to let you spend 3 trillion dollars to assure an oil supply for a few more years. I wish you guys in the US a lot of wisdom in your next elections. The poor people who have to drive 70 miles a day just to go to work should consider their situation very carefully, because there are absolutely no signs that the things will ever go back to what we had a few years ago. Sorry to be so pessimistic. We will eventually make things better again, but it will take many years. Y.

[Guy N. Heels]

...It's just to bad our USA politicians are involved in oil and do everything in their power to prevent this kind of energy from being produced. I have even seen cars run off water. Our government is NOT for the people as some of you from across the pond have been led to believe. They are out for them selves and thats it!

The bottom line here is: DON'T RE-ELECT ANYONE!!!

But then that still leaves to question of whom we can vote for that's going to be any better?

[yozz]

But then that still leaves to question of whom we can vote for that's going to be any better?

If you knew your classics you would know the answer (see third volume of the hitchhikers

guide to the galaxy "So long and thanks for all the fish"). Why do people vote for the

lizards? Because if you don't vote for the right lizard the wrong lizard might get elected.

In short: we need a completely different way to select leaders.

To Cindy: It does cost a lot more nowadays to get the oil. With the prices this high,

it becomes profitable to get at the oil in the deep see, the north of Alaska, Sachalin

etc. Many of these fields wouldn't be operated if the prices would be lower.

Squeezing more oil from a given field is also requiring more technology, like injecting

steam etc. On the whole the oil companies make more profit, yes, but it is far from

all profits between your 40 ct per gallon and $3 per gallon. And if the US government

would charge the Iraq war to the oilindustry......

Y.

[Bubba136]

In short: we need a completely different way to select leaders.

How? What would you suggest?

To Cindy: It does cost a lot more nowadays to get the oil. With the prices this high, it becomes profitable to get at the oil in the deep see, the north of Alaska, Sachalin etc. Many of these fields wouldn't be operated if the prices would be lower.

Squeezing more oil from a given field is also requiring more technology, like injecting steam etc. On the whole the oil companies make more profit, yes, but it is far from all profits between your 40 ct per gallon and $3 per gallon. And if the US government would charge the Iraq war to the oilindustry......

There is an article entitled "The Truth About Oil" in the April. 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics that pretty well outlines the current petroleum supply situation and difficulties with production. The bottom line is that, in terms of global supplies, there isn't any "shortage" and reports on the advances in exploration and drilling techniques that are available today that weren't available back in the 1970's. It's interesting and I would suggest anyone that is interested in petroleum's future, read it.

[billyb]

The energy industry would love to do more exploration devlope alternive sources and build more refinerys. The problem is government REG's and each state local government blocks any initiative because they don't want a refinery or other energy related industry in their back yard but they want the taxes, then there are the enviromentlist that try and stop all energy devlopment, their aginst wind turbines nuclear energy or even water produced energy. Now I am not aginst protecting the environment but there is a line you have the world demanding energy and a few who try and block any production so noting gets done.

[yozz]

How? What would you suggest?

Well, this was a problem that the ancient Greek already worried about.

Their democraty didn't work that well in the end either.

The best they could come up with was what we would call 'enlightened despotism'.

Clearly that hasn't worked 100% either or the words tyrant and despot wouldn't have

such a bad fame nowadays. It seems to have worked rather well many times though.

The current way of elections in which it is more important that a person looks perfect

on television and what he says is hardly relevant looks like a recipe for disaster.

This is already described in fahrenheit 453 (or whatever the number was).

Years ago there was a scientific american article analysing the performance of

English kings with those of American presidents. There had at that time been roughly

the same number of them. Ranking them good, mediocre, bad etc. it turned out that

the number of good ones of each was roughly the same. Idem bad ones.

I guess the only thing you can say against the kings is that some of the better ones

got to power in a rather violent way.

I guess I don't know what would be the best system. I am happy that I don't qualify

for the US presidency..... (in case they make that like jury duty).

Y.

[Arctic]

The problem with the American democracy is that it is more a perception of democracy rather than an actual one. Anyone who has been doing business in the States knows that Americans pick up very easily on new ideas, but are also the first to dump something when they are not repeatedly told that it is something good to sustain. This applies to products, services, ideologies, and politics. The way that you communicate with the average American individual is through advertising. If you have a message to get across or a product to sell, the way to do it is through purchasing bandwith on one of the few established channels: TV, radio, print or online. In the US, perception can be created by spending a certain (usually large) amount of money and systain it for a certain amount of time. It has been proven a thousand times over that for most products there is a direct, mostly linear, relationship between ad spending and consumer demand. For a new consumer product business, it is really hard to break through the ever-present cloud of advertising that is kept up by the established players. In the US, it is really possible to create perception. The cellphone carriers are a good example: AT&T and Verizon are the biggest ad spenders in the country, and is in the billions each. But the actual service quality level they provide, it might as well be Albania. Cell coverage in the US is really abysmal, behind any other developed country in West and East that I have been to. Still - the average revenue per user is higher than anywhere else in the world. What politics are concerned: if you tell people often enough the same message, they are more likely to remember it. And this is where the problems start: succeeding in US politics requires a gigantic amount of campaign money, which makes is cost prohibitive for a challenger out of the well-financed Republican or Democrat camp. And of course the Republicans and Democrats understand this very well, and they manage the communication so that there are no obvious holes in their strategy that someone without a large budget could punch through. So, the suggestion from an outsider: limit financial campaign support somehow, so that the perception creation game towards the average Joe can be done on a more equal footing - without having to purchase prime-time TV for example. When candidates compete purely on ideological merits, the duopoly is very likely to be broken and true democracy with representation based on people's opinions is likely to result. PS: this is not a problem exclusive to the US.

[Guy N. Heels]

Portions deleted to conserve space.

The problem with the American democracy is that it is more a perception of democracy rather than an actual one...

...Wh(ere) politics are concerned: if you tell people often enough the same message, they are more likely to remember it. And this is where the problems start: succeeding in US politics requires a gigantic amount of campaign money, which makes is cost prohibitive for a challenger out of the well-financed Republican or Democrat camp. And of course the Republicans and Democrats understand this very well, and they manage the communication so that there are no obvious holes in their strategy that someone without a large budget could punch through.

So, the suggestion from an outsider: limit financial campaign support somehow, so that the perception creation game towards the average Joe can be done on a more equal footing - without having to purchase prime-time TV for example. When candidates compete purely on ideological merits, the duopoly is very likely to be broken and true democracy with representation based on people's opinions is likely to result.

PS: this is not a problem exclusive to the US.

Arctic, you've put your finger precisely on the problem. Americans do not elect the best leaders, almost invariably we elect the ones who spend the most! Therefore, we can reasonably say that our leaders are not elected to office - they buy the office. Then an additional problem is the matter of people running for re-election. Or to put it another way, the space between a "campaign contribution" and an outright bribe is only a matter of angstroms.

[johnieheel]

Screw the environmentalists. There is enough oil in Alaska to last us forever here in the US. I say GO GET IT! and if the environmentalists don't like it, MOVE! Don't get me wrong, I like clean air and everything that goes with it same as the next guy but with the technology today, there is not that much risk of destroying the environment as back in the 70"s. We have to draw a line somewhere. We do not have to depend on foreign countries for oil. Bring our troops home, put a couple thousand tanks on the Mexican border and drill Alaska! I'm tired of trying to solve the worlds problems. We got enough right here. We also have the resources to fix it.

[Arctic]

Screw the environmentalists. There is enough oil in Alaska to last us forever here in the US. I say GO GET IT!

It's great you are so confident - but the problem is not so much the supply of oil. The issue is the consequences of burning it: If you lived in New Orleans, you would agree that an increased occurence of Katrina style phenomena is not a good thing.

I like clean air and everything that goes with it same as the next guy but with the technology today, there is not that much risk of destroying the environment as back in the 70"s.

Is there a possibility you don't quite understand the nature of the problem? The seventies issues were of totally different nature. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with pollutants, as a matter of fact most greenhouse gases are harmless as such.

We also have the resources to fix it.

That I agree about. But the solution is not about drilling more.

[hoverfly]

It's great you are so confident - but the problem is not so much the supply of oil. The issue is the consequences of burning it: If you lived in New Orleans, you would agree that an increased occurence of Katrina style phenomena is not a good thing.

Is there a possibility you don't quite understand the nature of the problem? The seventies issues were of totally different nature. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with pollutants, as a matter of fact most greenhouse gases are harmless as such.

That I agree about. But the solution is not about drilling more.

Thats for sure.....

In my opinion the solution is birth control. We must get a grip on the population.

[Bubba136]

Has anyone else seen this

http://www.thelastfourbooks.com/Joe_Cell/WaterFuel.wmv

[johnieheel]

Has anyone else seen this

http://www.thelastfourbooks.com/Joe_Cell/WaterFuel.wmv

A friend sent that to me last year.

Whats wrong with it?

Our govenment won't profit from it like oil so they don't want it to happen.

[johnieheel]

I agree that the supply of oil is not the problem. It's the price and the greedy people, like our very own government that keeps us in bondage. If we didn't have to spend so damn much on trying to fix the rest of the world and concentrate on our own land, the money saved just by bringing our troops home from all that BS in Iraq would be more than enough to solve disasters like Katrina, hunger, homeless, social security to name a few. It's all about greed in our own back yard (USA) and if you haven't figured that out yet, O well. It has everything to do with oil prices!

[Bubba136]

A friend sent that to me last year.

Whats wrong with it?

Our govenment won't profit from it like oil so they don't want it to happen.

There isn't a thing wrong with it. It is just that everyone would like to find an alternative source of energy and there are several alternatives already available.

And, you are correct in your assumption that the government, at all levels, won't profit from it. After all, how does one tax something that is readily available for free?

I can imagin, however, a interruption in income flowing into government coffers because they can no longer collect taxes from the sale of gasoline.

[tightsnheels]

I envision we will be hit with our road taxes each time we take the car in for our yearly inspection. Someone in the government will figure out how much the road tax is worth per mile and we will have to pay it before we can get our new plates:mecry: .

T&H

[johnieheel]

I envision we will be hit with our road taxes each time we take the car in for our yearly inspection. Someone in the government will figure out how much the road tax is worth per mile and we will have to pay it before we can get our new plates:mecry: .

T&H

Don't give them more ideas. They will think of it soon enough.

[Bubba136]

Taxes, taxes, taxes

[Bubba136]

I envision we will be hit with our road taxes each time we take the car in for our yearly inspection. Someone in the government will figure out how much the road tax is worth per mile and we will have to pay it before we can get our new plates:mecry: .

T&H

True, that!

[hoverfly]

I envision we will be hit with our road taxes each time we take the car in for our yearly inspection. Someone in the government will figure out how much the road tax is worth per mile and we will have to pay it before we can get our new plates:mecry: .

T&H

All ready being considered in some states because the of increase of hybrids on the road. One way or another you will be paying a new tax when the use of oil starts to decrease. Personaly I perfer tolls, pay as you go.

[tightsnheels]

All ready being considered in some states because the of increase of hybrids on the road. One way or another you will be paying a new tax when the use of oil starts to decrease. Personaly I perfer tolls, pay as you go.

Only problem there is that every road would become a toll road.

They will probebly just require the cars to be fit with some elaborate filling device so we have to buy the "fuel" at an autherized reseller. After all hydric acid (water) is a real hazardous substance.

Reminds me of the time when we had a tank truck over turn on the highway and they closed it down to bring in haz-mat guys to clean it up and all it was, was vinegar.

T&H

[thedesigner]

if its vinegar, i'd take that with a pinch of salt.... ...and put it on your french fries.... see us guys in the uk wanna participate in the way we know best eg humour.... half baked it may be... or even cheesy.. but this one wont jacket in.... we just keep chippin away.....

[Amanda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeEPfiaeRA0

That's progress.

For many years now I have noticed many things about this round of economic growth that put a big question mark in my mind, how!?! Well now we know, but now after the boom went bust we have the falling of the dollar, actually the dollar falling have been going for some time now how has that affected others around the world? Discuss.

[Dr. Shoe]

Only problem there is that every road would become a toll road.

They will probebly just require the cars to be fit with some elaborate filling device so we have to buy the "fuel" at an autherized reseller. After all hydric acid (water) is a real hazardous substance.

Reminds me of the time when we had a tank truck over turn on the highway and they closed it down to bring in haz-mat guys to clean it up and all it was, was vinegar.

T&H

No, it was probably Acetic Acid which is what vinegar is. I have carried Acetics that will burn a hole right through your hand in a matter of seconds. Somebody probably said, "it was acetic acid." and then the next guy said, "but that's what vinegar is.". Before long you have that story going around. Spill an acetic and it has to be dealt with in all seriousness even if it is as weak as vinegar.

[HappyinHeels]

What a difference a few years makes as one goes from the start of this thread in 2008 to the current day in 2012. The US dollar got battered in 2008 and in 2010 but now it is the EURO that is in deep trouble. Investors worldwide have either returned to the US dollar or have found that currencies such as the dollars of Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore are worth investing in as confidence in Europe continues to erode. Europe's problems have been developing over some time now; high rates of taxation, discontent at recent waves of immigrants that don't seem as interested at integrating themselves into their adopted countries, declining or stagnant population growth, out of control entitlement spending, and in some countries, the overall feeling that ordinary citizens are not safe against notably higher crime because they feel their nations' judicial systems are no longer equipped to deal with it. You may not like what I'm saying but it is based on where investors' money is actually going and not on a personal opinion of the "Euro" way of doing things. THere is no perfect nation to follow but there are places they could seriously look at. If they copied the dynamic market-based economies of the United States or AUstralia in their ability to create jobs, create the trade surpluses enjoyed by China and Brazil based on their huge investments improving their own infrastructures, become a financial hub like Singapore, and basically get off the backs of their citizens. They either drastically reform their ways or hope that Germany writes yet another bailout check and I recommend the Germans don't do that. Everyone is certainly watching the action as portfolios from Beijing to Brasilia and Wellington to Wisconsin have been affected by the financial bungling there. The old adage of diversification has never been more true than now. HappyinHeels