Weening our addiction to oil

A place to share stories about good guys and to get ideas and information about being one yourself.

Moderators: BarbaraSher, Tituba

Oil-Shortage,,,,,,,,,,\"NOT\"!!!

Postby songpoet » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:24 pm

To \"WEEN\" ourself off of oil based products is a GOOD thing no question, certainly for the environment. But don't let it be based on the false information that there is an oil shortage. Check out web-address below; http://rense.com/general67/PRICE.HTM If you're even cautiously open-minded, the story spills out like the TRUTH, The WHOLE Truth & Nothing but the TRUTH. These Oil-Magnates make Saddamn Hussein look like a model citizen. Check out their underhanded way they tried to get the abominable drilling done up in the ALASKAN WILDLIFE PRESERVE passed in congress by holding the victims of Katrina hostage (metaphorically). http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/energy_policy :shock:
songpoet
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 11:01 pm

Postby natbalou » Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:50 am

Go Cubbies, As far as I know a liter or a kilometer is the same whether in Canada or Europe so I don't see where the calculations would differ. Also, these figures are not just there for comparison purposes but are there to show us what the car will get for mileage per gallon. My point was to show that we can have fuel efficient cars but that the manufacturers here continue to produce gas guzzling cars instead. Natalie
natbalou
New Poster
New Poster
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Postby Scenario Thinker » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:21 pm

natbalou wrote:So, car manufacturers had to come up with more fuel efficient cars. Did you know that Ford's Focus consumes only 5,6L/100km in Europe but it consumes 7.7L/100km in North America. ( In gallons it comes out to 1.48/62 miles in Europe and 1.85/62 miles in North America.) I am talking about the same two-door, 136 horse power, 6-speed manual transmission Ford Focus here. Why aren't they as fuel efficient here?
Because they didn't need to be? (Until now) I suspect the European manufacturers have put fuel saving devices or figured out how to build them more efficiently. There may be many differences within the car besides just the base engine and transmission. I have a Ford Focus (SVT-more sporty) and I get about 20 miles/gallon which is 62 / 20 = 3.1, 62miles/3.1 gallons = 3.1gallons/62 miles. I got a lot better mileage with my Acura(Honda) and Toyota. In fact my Acura mileage was in the mid to upper 20's per gallon and faster than the Focus. I kinda miss my Japanese cars right now.
S.Thinker
....o
^/v
/>
User avatar
Scenario Thinker
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: near Chicago

Postby GoCubbies » Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:29 pm

not questioning that a liter is different here or there. no two vehicles coming off an assembly line will operate identically. and each driver drives differently and under different conditions. Fuel quality varies for instance. What the EPA has done is to develop a protocol (in the 1970's) which is used to compare the efficiencies of different car models. They always say these are estimates. Here's the problem they're facing now: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/200 ... usat_x.htm I don't know what any particular differences are between North America and Europe. I do remember we paid 95-99 cents per gallon in the late 90's, an extremely low price taking inflation into account, and most people didn't care about mileage. So some manufacturers didn't care either. It's so easy for us to reach a conclusion in a simplistic way, because we can only see a small part of the \"elephant\".
GoCubbies
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:01 pm

Postby twisterintexas » Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:44 pm

I thought I'd add an update here to recount how I'm trying to live more ecologically aware. - I've stopped making unnecessary trips with my car. I only fill up 2x a month now. - I'm mowing the lawn with a reel lawn mower, and weed eating with an electric trimmer. - I'm composting all my organic household trash now. My leaves go inside my compost pile, too, so I don't use plastic bags for my raked leaves any more. - I take canvass bags to the grocery store and am consistently aware of how much packaging a food has - if it's too much, I won't buy it. - I'm buying more locally grown food, and am cooking at home a lot more. - I've stopped buying meat. That's not to say I've gone completely vegetarian, as we have lots of deer and hog meat (from hunting) in the freezer. But I've made up my mind not to eat beef at all anymore, and am cutting back on chicken. I eat meat maybe 4x a week now. - I get all of my eggs from my mom, who has chickens, which lay like nobody's business. - I still ride my bike all over town and run most of my errands on two wheels. I also wanted to bump this topic in case any new members wanted to add suggestions or comments.
User avatar
twisterintexas
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:01 pm
Location: Texas

bad choices

Postby kindnessatwork » Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:47 pm

One of the biggest wastes of fuel,and causes more pollution,is when they increased the speed limit on highways. I saw a chart years ago,on the miles per gallon at different speeds.Driving at 50 to 55 mph your car burns a certain amount of fuel At 60 to 65 mph it burns a lot more fuel. When they increased the speed limit to 65 mph,that means everyone is driving 70 to 75 mph,because they always go faster than they're supposed to. At that speed you're wasting about DOUBLE the fuel than you did at 55 mph.So how come the experts didn't think about that?
kindnessatwork
Regular Poster
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 9:27 am
Location: washington,nj

Re: bad choices

Postby Scenario Thinker » Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:34 am

kindnessatwork wrote:At that speed you're wasting about DOUBLE the fuel than you did at 55 mph.So how come the experts didn't think about that?
I don't know about double. I'd like to see that chart. First of all, no one goes 55 in a 55 zone anyhow. They usually go 65-70+. In a 65 zone they're probably going 70-80+. I was reading one place where they say MOST people drive as fast as they think is safe. In other words there's always a couple nuts, but the majority will feel like it's safe to go 80 in a 65 zone (on a wide, smooth 4-lane in dry conditions), and it probably is. It would be nice if they all went 60/65, but they don't. In the thread Gas Prices, there was some discussion on the change in MPH versus the change in gas used. Here's a couple points made: http://www.barbarasher.com/boards/viewt ... 745#166745 http://www.barbarasher.com/boards/viewt ... 792#166792 So, it really depends on the car. If the RPM in the engine only goes up slightly from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, the gas used won't be much different. I don't know anyone who starts out from home and drives 55 (or 65, or 80) all the way to work, anyhow. Usually, there's a couple dozen traffic lights, and if it's the interstate, there's pockets of slowdowns during the rush periods. The only time I remember getting out on the highway and going nonstop to work, was when I worked out in the sticks. Remember, when going from 0 to 65, you still have to go from 0 to 55 to get there. So, if everyone would start out slowly (ha ha) it would save gas.
S.Thinker
....o
^/v
/>
User avatar
Scenario Thinker
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: near Chicago

Postby Longstrider » Sun Aug 20, 2006 8:39 am

One of the easist ways to conserve fuel is to manage your momentum. By avoiding fast starts and slowing down to avoid complete stops you can add as much as 3 miles per gallon. What it really boils down to is taking the time to drive smart.
User avatar
Longstrider
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: D/FW Texas

Postby jims » Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:36 am

This is an interesting point. Many of our current global problems are due to our dependence on lots of cheap oil. Everyone wants to just find more oil or energy alternatives. These alternatives are promising, but will take a while. If we all drove at 55, we could cut our demand for oil in a day or so. I just wonder how much we would change exactly if we went from say 75 on the super highways to 55. What is involved is drag. The air friction or drag increases greatly at higher speeds. The amount of drag is no real big deal at 40. I know it increases by at least an order of magnitude when you double speeds. That is if you double your speed from 40 to 80, you do not double your fuel consumption--you increase it at least by 4 (2 squared). Maybe someone on the forum can check out the details. Jim S
jims
Experienced Poster
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:01 pm
Location: upstate NY

Postby jclass » Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:25 am

With each fill-up, I think it's sinking in more and more that we won't have $1.50/gallon gas again. That this isn't a spike. When the wallet gets hit, people figure out different options. It's affecting future location economics and what sells. A big item will be whether China gets its currency in line with the world or drops off a cliff like Japan did twenty years ago.
jclass
New Poster
New Poster
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 3:42 pm

Postby Scenario Thinker » Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:10 pm

jims wrote:I just wonder how much we would change exactly if we went from say 75 on the super highways to 55. What is involved is drag. The air friction or drag increases greatly at higher speeds. The amount of drag is no real big deal at 40. I know it increases by at least an order of magnitude when you double speeds. That is if you double your speed from 40 to 80, you do not double your fuel consumption--you increase it at least by 4 (2 squared). Maybe someone on the forum can check out the details.
Yes, I'd like to see some numbers. Cars are much more aerodynamic than they used to be. I wonder how much difference there really is from 55 to 75 (wind resistance). I know just from a personal experience perspective, the wind really starts getting noisy through the windows at 55+. At 40 or so, there's a gentle breeze. Here's a link from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29 Power = 1/2 p v**3 AC v**3 means velocity cubed, p, A, and C are constant. By doubling velocity, you increase power by 8 [ (2v)**3 = 8v**3 ]. But then you get there twice as fast, so energy consumption increases by 8 / 2 = 4. Using 55 & 75: 75**3 / 55**3 = about 2.5 more power. Using the same logic, 75/55 = 1.36, so energy consumption increases by 2.5 / 1.36 = 1.84. Maybe Kindness' chart isn't so far off. I wonder if the experts are from the oil companies.
S.Thinker
....o
^/v
/>
User avatar
Scenario Thinker
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 7331
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: near Chicago

Postby Longstrider » Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:24 am

I just want a bumper sticker Speed on Brother Bush needs his cut from Iraq
User avatar
Longstrider
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: D/FW Texas

Postby jcjm » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:29 pm

Its all about the money. We could do a cold turkey approach if we wanted to, but there are too many lobbyists with too deep of pockets and too many politicians with their hands out for campaign contributions. Big oil buys up patents on new technology and holds them until it is useful for them to pursue them. They had the 50 mpg carburator since World War II, but we still haven't seen it in cars. It is my guess that people going of the grid for energy will cause alternative energy to come about before the corporatations pursue it. Just like it took an upstart company like Apple to cause IBM to change their business model from the mainframe to PC's.
jcjm
Mega Poster
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 1597
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2002 10:01 pm

Power your car on water

Postby Ideas-Man » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:26 am

Everyone could convert their Cars to burning hydrogen gotten from water, solar, and wind, right now, and have zero emission cars. Please go to the American Hydrogen Association http://www.clean-air.org/ because there are many cars powered by hydrogen, and hydrogen fuels cells, some by everyday people, not millionaires. The fuel cell was invented in 1839, 167 years ago, we could have been having zero emission cars and homes all this time. For more information on my ideas please see my website Ideas to Save the Planet, http://www.ideastosavetheplanet.org/ and see my pages - Global Conversion to the Hydrogen Economy, fueled by Solar, Wind, and Water. - Burning Hydrogen, instead of Oil and Coal. - What's Too Expensive? - Water Pipelines Instead of Oil Pipelines. - My Call to Greatness to the American People It's totally unnecessary to have wars for oil, and spend billion putting military bases along oil pipelines, because everyone could be powering their cars and homes from water and filling up their cars with hydrogen gas they produce themselves, from solar, wind, and water. So convert your own car to hydrogen and lobby the government to make converting the nation to zero emission hydrogen, solar, and wind, a national priority.
Ideas-Man
New Poster
New Poster
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:52 am

Postby kdb » Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:51 pm

there are many cars powered by hydrogen Experimental cars only, not mass-produced cars. The fuel cell was invented in 1839, 167 years ago, we could have been having zero emission cars and homes all this time. Some of the technology to make fuel cells viable wasn't invented until recently. I agree that we need to look into alternative energy sources. But please do not underestimate the engineering challenges.
kdb
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 10:01 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Doing Good in the World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest