Toyota Prius Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Congratulate yourself on getting a Prius -- this is a harbinger to higher gasoline prices.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/24/markets ... /index.htm

U.S. light crude for November delivery jumped 42 cents to $48.88 a barrel, a record closing high for the nearest month at the New York Mercantile Exchange. The previous record price was $48.70 a barrel set Aug. 19th. Next-day light crude hit $49.40 during trading but failed to close there.
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Prices not effected

Prices at the pump are rising again. Glad I got my Prius!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
hyperion said:
Don't celebrate too fast. Our whole economy is based on the price of oil. Maybe this administration in Washington will finally figure this out. Bush is going to fight California's new exhaust regulations. In realality, not forcing the US auto industry into hybrids.
I think even if the Bush administration does win then there is still the fact of the market could encourage people to buy Priuses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
On the same topic, I just ordered my new bumper sticker with the little green recycle arrows and "Bush Sucks Gas...My Car Doesn't."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
Tharkun said:
I think even if the Bush administration does win then there is still the fact of the market could encourage people to buy Priuses.
The waiting lists would appear to support that. 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
Not to sound too political here, but this is just something I have been thinking about lately, particularly since I've had lots of time driving to escape Hurricane Jeanne.

Could it be possible that we are not close enough (scientifically speaking) to succeeding with alternative energy resources (with the potential that "peak oil" is or will soon be upon us) that maybe it would make sense to continue to use any and all petroleum oil reserves in the world anyway? Just use 'em all up while we keep looking for alternatives.

My point is that maybe it makes no sense to leave the oil in there (the ground in other countries) as long as they (those governments or countries) are willing to sell it to us, even at confiscatory rates.

It's possible that it also makes no STRATEGIC or MILITARY sense to leave huge oil reserves in countries where unfriendly governments and/or terrorists can have access to it?

It's just food for thought, borne out from too much driving and thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
That would be a thought Bif except our whole economy is predicated now on oil and unless we are willing to go "nuculer" thats not going to change. Probably why Gen Motors has awakened and stated that all models of their cars will be hybrid in 2007. They evidentually know what the price of oil will be after the election. The industry fully expects the cost per barrel to reach $200.00 And my house is heated by oil. YIKES
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
Yeah, I hear ya, Hyperion. But I'm thinking that maybe in the halls of Congress and the White House, they're thinking about the potential that we'll run out of oil in the next generation or two. Here's my logic:

1) We won't secure our borders, either from Canada or from Mexico. Hmmm, funny...it just occurred to me that we get most of our imported oil (greater than 60%) from Canada alone. And we get lots of oil from Mexico, too. I wonder if maybe we don't want to make our friends to the North and South mad at us?

2) We won't put the hammer down on some of those criminal regimes in the United Nations. Oh, yeah...some of them are members of OPEC.

3) As some have opined here in other threads, we continue to make deals with Opec and with Saudi Arabia. But then the "opiner" goes on to accuse Bush and Cheny and Haliburton of nefarious deeds.

But consider this for a moment: Maybe it's because we know our economy cannot "go without." And it might be an astute military consideration for the US to use up their oil first, so that they won't be able to use it against us for terrorism or conquest/enslavement attempts? So maybe the thinking is that we're better off paying for it and using it up now, so that it cannot be used by our enemies later?

Again, it's just a thought.

---------------------------

As for your GM comment...whenever I hear some prognostication from General Motors, memories of distrust fill my head and my brain starts to hurt. So I pop two aspirin and go to sleep until the pain goes away.

I don't believe ANYTHING General Motors says. I'm not sure they have ever built a truly reliable automobile. And I don't believe they will ever come out with reliable hybrids. Or even "real" hybrids, for that matter. I think they'll find some way to "lazy" their way out of it.

And "going nuclear" really isn't an answer, and not because of the waste problem. No, I think the real problem is that there is not enough nuclear fuel available to support an all-nuclear global economy. Plus, we get nuclear fuel by digging for it. Heavy machinery still uses petroleum oil in one or more of its refined forms, and in great quantities, too.

Drat. I have a headache from thinking about GM. GRRRRRR!!

:x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
BIF said:
But consider this for a moment: Maybe it's because we know our economy cannot "go without." And it might be an astute military consideration for the US to use up their oil first, so that they won't be able to use it against us for terrorism or conquest/enslavement attempts? So maybe the thinking is that we're better off paying for it and using it up now, so that it cannot be used by our enemies later?
Several years ago I was told by a guy at Phillips Patroleum (sp?) that for every well inside the US that they pump from, they are required to have five capped. Now that was several years ago, and may have been innacurate then, but it does seem to support your theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
Yes, BUT, The rest of the civilized? world is already nuclear powered. Extremely noticeable when you fly over Europe and Britain. Except for one incident in Russia 16 yrs ago, no problems there. Whats disturbing is Iran insisting that their treated platonium is for the developement of power plants. This while they are sitting on top of some of the worlds largest oil reserves! I was completely surprised by GM's full page ad in the Times as I have been waiting patiently for the government to mandate something like this and have been frustrated because the pressure and $ of the oil industry has been hindering this. I finally gave up waiting and figured if I was to ever own a hybid powered in my lifetime I was going to have to turn to the Japanese. I think this demand for a hybrid has shocked the industry including Toyota. Especially when Toyota announced future plans of building facilities in the U.S. to manufacture hybrids. If you can't pound common sense into them, "hit them in the pocket book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
Believe me, Hyperion, this is the preferrable way; letting the market speak, rather than "waiting patiently for government mandates." We get better products that way.

Right now, we have three Hybrids actually on the market. The Prius, the Honda Civic Hybrid, and the Honda Insight. Although the Insight hasn't been selling that well lately, each of them is a great car in its own right. None of them is the result of a government mandate.

As for the safety of nuclear technology in Europe; I'm not so sure that european countries would be inclined to admit an accident. Some of them are quite snooty and arrogant. Of course, maybe this is just my own silly impression.

But if I am right, then we don't know how many accidents there may have been. Or how much contamination there may have been.

When the old Soviet Union was disassembling some of its obsolete nuclear-powered ships, they would simply cut the nuclear "hotbox" part of the ship (about a three-story section) and sink it. Yes, in the water. No, not encased in any way. No, they didn't announce this proudly for all the world to behold. They hid it, as they initially tried to hide the Kursk submarine (also a nuclear-powered vessel) incident.

And be careful what you wish for: For the United States to replace petroleum oil and coal-based power generating capacity, we would have to begin construction on hundreds of nuclear power plants. Not five. Not ten. Not fifty. Hundreds. Plural. Can somebody help me out with some actual mathematical calculations here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
BIF said:
Can somebody help me out with some actual mathematical calculations here?
I think everything you need would be here:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html

But in short, total US power generation is around 3 Terawatts, a fair sized nuke puts out about 1 Gigawatt. So you need about 3,000 of these units. At five units per plant, that is about 600 power plants.

Really quick and dirty numbers, but I expect they are within an order of magnitude of correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
Something like a nuclear problem would be heard far and wide, as was "chernoble" They do have newspapers in Europe. No this has been the trouble free power of choice in Europe since the fifties. Of course I would not expect any politician from Texas wanting to change in any way our dependency for oil as much as any politician in Nebraska, Iowa, or Missouri to want to prescribe for less ethonal to be added to a gallon of gas. Of course the Nuclear power plants are a whole different category and could be lumped in with politics, religion and sex as a no, no subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
We as a country should be working on either fusion, or fission with a
breader reactor. Fusion has to be by far the safest power source.

Another thing I wonder is why we are not using solar power. Satellites
could be placed in geo orbit and collect the power of the sun and beam
it back to collectors on the earth. Imagine the power that could be
generated!

The fact is we have a large quantity of oil in Alaska if we ever choose to
drill it out. I would suspect the 1 to 5 is to allow us to have reserves to
protect ourselves in case of a war.

They are more hybrids on the way, utilizing technology from Toyota in
many (all?) cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
hyperion said:
Something like a nuclear problem would be heard far and wide, as was "chernoble" They do have newspapers in Europe....
Yes, but it's not really a "free press" in many other countries. We have a free press in the US. Many countries don't. Their news agencies get their stories "approved" or maybe even WRITTEN BY a "ministry of information" or "department of communication" of some sort.

Many European and Asian countries still hide their dirty little secrets, such as when the French hid their trading with Iraq (which was in direct violation of several UN resolutions). How did this go on, if France didn't have the help of an international press with a blind eye to the truth?

And the old Soviet Union most certainly tried to hide Chernobyl. They also tried to hide the Kursk. And they also kind-of/sort-of tried to hide the latest terror attack in that school a few weeks ago. That last one is not "nuclear-related", but it demonstrates my point about them hiding and having poor reporting.

I'm not an anti-nuke person. In fact, I believe we are cooked without investigating and using EVERY possible fuel source, including oil from the Gulf of Mexico, ANWR, and the Middle East. Disagree with me if you must, but I'll bet you that eventually, we will all realize that we are not close enough to alternative sources of fuel, and we'll also realize that we must and will eventually use all of everything that we can (oil, coal, natural gas). We have to, because oil will eventually be gone or too hard to get to, and we still have to feed all of these people.

Having said that, here are a few interesting links. If you get bored, do your own Google on "+Russia +nuclear +accident" or substitute "Soviet" for "Russia". I think there have been many more accidents, (particularly in Europe and maybe Asia too) than the press is reporting on.

A catalog of nuclear accidents, major and minor:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nuk ... rep02.html

A short info sheet of Russian nuclear accidents:
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandal ... ssnuke.htm

A catalog of Russian nuclear submarine accidents (how many of these have you read about? And do you wonder why that fish you got from the Barents sea was glowing?):
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/ ... 11084.html

Yet another catalog of nuclear accidents, ranging in levels of seriousness:
http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/ ... dents.html

To summarize: My point here is that I am quite certain that it would not be wise to completely trust the press overseas. Hell, CBS, Time Magazine, The New York Times, and other press outlets here have proven that we cannot trust our own news agencies with impunity!

But at least here in the US, we have a new variety of press. We have a "traditional mainstream" press and the "alternative" press. If Dan Rather won't report on a nuclear accident outside of Toledo, certainly Matt Drudge would. If Fox News decided to bury a story on a chemical spill outside of West Undershirt, Idaho, then I'll bet Tom Brokaw would air it.

And because of this, eventually, the truth gets out here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,878 Posts
You forget, in todays technology if someone anywhere in the world hic-ups we know of it before they say "excuse me". Believe me, you would hear of it. Take the explosion in N Korea several weeks ago. I'm just stating that since the movie "China Syndrone" and I'm sure because of the lobbying of the oil industry there hasn't been a nuclear plant planned and built in the U.S. I'm serious about flying over Europe. I used to do it for a living and you have to see it to believe it. Since the late fifties You can spot nuclear power plants everywhere and they are as obvious at altitude as all the "grain elevators" scattered all across Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico. We have been conned into this "nuclear waste" baloney by the oil and coal industry. There have been thousands of papers written on the subject but methinks by people with an agenda while the rest of the world gets by with inexpensive nuclear power. Why in the world would Iran feel they can even justify building a nuclear power plant when they are sitting on all that ten cent a barrel oil? However, this is another subject like religion, sex, and politics where intense and unchangeable opinions abound. I think it is real surprising to pass over a spot like "Wales" in britain and notice several nuclear plants operating atop the coal fields where they have been for twenty years, and then find people protesting the arrival of a U.S. Nuclear powered submarine arriving in a port a hundred miles away. I live 18 miles from a Nuclear power plant but the only time I hear anything about it is when it is shut down for a month for cleaning and maintanence. I hear about it then by the note of apology from the electric company with their bill informing me why my electric bill is greater this month because of the necessity of them having to revert to power by their oil and coal fired plants. Tough subject but so are many changes that could be taken today. The government has removed their incentives that were once given for energy efficient houses, solar heating and are now placing hurdles in the path of the construction of wind power. They are letting the hybrid powered car incentive lapse. I've listened to one of my own liberal Senators for years spouting for more efficient energy who is now fighting the establishment of a wind power farm in the shallows of Nantuket sound in his backyard. I'm afraid it's a no win situation. Maybe G.M.'s announcement that they are finally off the fence about their plans for hydrogen power and that all their 2007 models will be hybrid powered will start the ball rolling here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,563 Posts
hyperion said:
You can spot nuclear power plants everywhere and they are as obvious at altitude as all the "grain elevators" scattered all across Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico.
Thinks are not always as they seem. For instance, off of the Bee-Line Expressway here in FLA, there is a power plant that looks very much like the pictures you see of the three-mile island nuclear facility... except that it's a coal burning plant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
BIF said:
hyperion said:
Many European and Asian countries still hide their dirty little secrets, such as when the French hid their trading with Iraq (which was in direct violation of several UN resolutions). How did this go on, if France didn't have the help of an international press with a blind eye to the truth?
The press here has not been too forward about our dealings with Iraq during the embargo. Why would the French press be any different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
BIF... no, no, noooo

"maybe it would make sense to continue to use any and all petroleum oil reserves in the world anyway?"

[set soapbox on]

This cannot and will not happen. We will never run out of oil, ever. If we burn just the known reserves in the ground, ignoring any oil discovered in the future, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be ten times it's current level, TEN TIMES!

I'm not a tree hugging environmentalist by any means, but this cannot be allowed to happen. At the end of the day we will never kill the planet. We may make it uninhabitable for us, but after that mother earth will balance back out in a couple centurys.

Bottom line is we need a renewable non-poluting energy source. We need a new way to propell our planes, trains, and automobiles. We need to stop using coal, oil, and natural gas to generate electricity (can you say YIKES!).

Look around you. Everything you see, every single thing, has oil as the foundation of it's creation. It's been a century since we started our dependence on oil. It's going to take a century to break it. And if we do consume all the reserves in the next century as predicted, the world is going to be a very, very different place... like Palm trees in Michigan different.

[set soapbox off]

Troy
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top