As the saying goes: If there is a will, there's also a way...

Get going then.

That takes money... And our parents didn't leave us the same 'inheritance' that your parents left you...

For a man who bases his entire existence on money, I would think you could understand that... ;)

(Why don't you make your own meds? or build your own rocket? Do you get my drift yet?)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I live in an area that doesn't have any train, subway, tram ( whatever the heck that happens to be ) or bus services.

The town I live in is small enough to get around on a bicycle, but if I want to get to any major department stores, or even a Wal Mart, I have to drive there.

The large cities such as New York and Los Angeles ( even Detroit ) have services like that available. But here where I live, and in the small cities in the surrounding this area, those options are simply not viable economically.

That's the reasons why some of the bus and train lines in my former home area have been deleted: They engaged some ppl who counted the passengers in the late morning and in the afternoon - and despite this time being when almost everyone was at work who used these possibilities to get to their work (or home from work), they just erased these connections between the bigger town and several smaller towns and villages, everything with the excuse of "being not viable economically". If they had counted the passengers between 5am and 8 am, between 12 and 3pm, and between 9pm and 11pm - the main traffic times, when people go to their shifts or travel home from their shifts, they would have known that these connections were important. But those ppl who made the decision only think short-term profits, not long-time advantages...

tram ( whatever the heck that happens to be )

see here. ;)

Thorin, my point to my argument was that there are not nearly enough people in the area I live to make a train or bus system a viable option.

There are fewer than 2000 people in the town I live in....and the population density of the entire county I live in wouldn't make a system like that worth the time and effort to create it.

Now of course, we COULD have the taxpayers pay for it, but that would create a whole lot of angry people because they would be put in a position of having no choice but to support a system that constantly loses money.

If I want to lose my money, and get no gain from it whatsoever, I'll just go to one of the many casinos around here and hand it to the people who own the place.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

When we moved into our house in 62 heating oil was a shade over $0.15 cents a gallon. Now is is something around $4.00 plus tax. With a much better furnace we now use on third as much oil, but at a huge increase in the bill. Way more than the inflation during the intervening years.

Exxon had a recent ad stating its profit is 8% of sales. So even if they had no profit it would still cost over there and a half bucks a gallon. On the other hand thew well owner collects $115 a barrel for each and every one pumped.

Great racket for those who own wells. Oh! Exxon also owns some (or a lot) wells too!


What do we do? We have two push bikes that get ten miles out of a half bottle of beer at dinner. Lot cheaper than gas and tastes better too....

We also bought a Prius while it still had a big tax credit. It gets double the miles out of each gallon of liquid gold that most compact cars achieve. And perhaps four times that of Hummers and SUV's.

Too bad that these credits are gone because so many like us bought so many of these marvels of engineering.


Duke

When we moved into our house in 62 heating oil was a shade over $0.15 cents a gallon. Now is is something around $4.00 plus tax.

Oh stop lying... We all know hard life was in the 60's... Fuel wasn't 15 cents per gallon, cars didn't cost 1500 bucks, houses weren't 20000 dollars, rent wasn't 100 bills a month, postage stamps weren't a penny, a soda pop wasn't a nickel, McDonalds cheeseburgers were never 25 cents a piece, and a 30000 dollar a year salary was hardly enough to live on...

Why do you think they had so much time to protest everything under the sun?

It's because they were working sooooooooooooooo hard just to get by... ;)

(Kudos to you, it was refreshing to see an honest poster on these boards for a change.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Web sites promote "hypermiling" to save on fuel

What on earth is " hypermiling " and what exactly does a giant pig have to do with it??

Oops, guess I didn't check my link. Here is the correct one.

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

Well it's all good news for the environment..and maybe with higher fuel costs like we have here the US will start using more economical cars rather than gas guzzlers. :)

---

Reality Internet Personality

Most and least fuel efficient cars

---

Reality Internet Personality

Well it's all good news for the environment..and maybe with higher fuel costs like we have here the US will start using more economical cars rather than gas guzzlers. :)

Some people will. Some people won't. Just like here in London. There is no shortage of gas guzzlers around here, Range Rovers, X5s, big Fords and Mercedes, et cetera. There is no shortage of Fortwos either.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Well it's all good news for the environment..and maybe with higher fuel costs like we have here the US will start using more economical cars rather than gas guzzlers. :)

Some people will. Some people won't. Just like here in London. There is no shortage of gas guzzlers around here, Range Rovers, X5s, big Fords and Mercedes, et cetera. There is no shortage of Fortwos either.

There are much less gas guzzlers here..remember the part of London you are living in is NOT representative of the rest of London or even England.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Some people will. Some people won't. Just like here in London. There is no shortage of gas guzzlers around here, Range Rovers, X5s, big Fords and Mercedes, et cetera. There is no shortage of Fortwos either.

There are much less gas guzzlers here..remember the part of London you are living in is NOT representative of the rest of London or even England.

Of course, there are fewer gas guzzlers here, the population is 1/5th that of the US.

The point was not that Camden represents anything, the point was that people choose for themselves. Some of them choose Fortwos, some of them choose X5s.

That gas is taxed so heavily here just means, as always, that the effect of most of those costs are imposed on those that can afford it the least.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

States may join gas tax holiday

---

me@rescam.org

'Squawk Box' Guest Warns of $12-15-a-Gallon Gas

Big Oil defends profits before irate senators

---

me@rescam.org

Do to high utility cost and the need to save money where ever I can I am no longer leaving my computer on after I go to bed. That means I will no longer be running SETI 24/7. Sorry it is just to much. I hope you under stand.

---

If I may be so bold...

In mid summer of 1945, after the German surrender, US and British engineers took possession of a number of type XXII and XXIII Uboats.

The significance of this is in the fact that these submarines were then turned over to General Motors, Rolls Royce, Chrysler, and Ford, after the navy engineers went over their designs. (these subs were the interim step between diesel-electric and nuclear) In fact, had these classes been able to be put into production AND into operation prior to June of 1944, the outcome of the war would have been in serious doubt.

Now, the reason for the automotive interest.

These submarines were powered by Hydrogen Peroxide engines, and more efficient than any previous attempt to use Hydrogen Peroxide as a fuel. With the fact that the system had two exhaust components, oxygen and water, the engines were non-polluting and quiet.

In the years since the technology was turned over to the automotive industry, the design has been improved, and the original corrosive form of Hydrogen Peroxide is no longer needed as a fuel.

Now, for a few facts:

1) The switch required for the automotive industry to go from petroleum based engines to H202 engines would be relatively simple, since the engine is based on a standard diesel design.

2) The largest producers of H2O2 happen to be the oil companies.

3) The changes in the supply infrastructure is again simple, since the non-corrosive form of the fuel is used, which also means that any leakage in the tanks would be non-polluting.

4) In the US, the Department of Energy has repeatedly declared the technology needs more research. (now, if the technology has reached a point of using non-corrosive fuel that is environmentally friendly, what more needs researched?)

5) Estimated cost to consumers per gallon would be less than 45.9 cents. (even at this price, the fuel producers, including oil companies would have a profit of 500%)

6) It would even be profitable for a free conversion from gas or diesel to H2O2 engines.

7) This system would be useful in everything from transportation to power generation.

Now, the only problem that may have the US government concerned is the dreadfully high pollution from the exhaust, I mean it would be just terrible to have a car putting oxygen and water vapor into the atmosphere.

If I may be so bold...

H2O2 engines.

...

You may enjoy reading This link relative to H202 etc

Regards

---

America's self-imposed energy crisis

GEORGE F. WILL
THE WASHINGTON POST

June 5, 2008

Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: “I rise to discuss rising energy prices.” The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising.

Saudi Arabia, he said, “holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term.” Therefore, arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it “increases its oil production by one million barrels per day,” which would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately.”

Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the SPR also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators – including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain – have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.

So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. “Democracy,” said H.L. Mencken, “is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.

Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground, and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – 10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in a year.

Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.

ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware) and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles Airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent – that is one-thousandth of 1 percent – has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore – and a thriving commercial fishing industry.

In his “Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence,' ” Robert Bryce says Brazil's energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil's shore. Investor's Business Daily reports that Brazil, “which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio's beaches,” has leased most of the world's deep-sea drilling rigs.

In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their “Jack No. 2” well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress' response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.

America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.

---

me@rescam.org

When gasoline prices force change

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
THE WASHINGTON POST

June 6, 2008

So now we know: The price point is $4.

At $3 a gallon, Americans just grin and bear it, suck it up, and, while complaining profusely, keep driving like crazy. At $4, it is a world transformed. Americans become rational creatures. Mass transit ridership is at a 50-year high. Driving is down 4 percent. (Any U.S. decline is something close to a miracle.) Hybrids and compacts are flying off the lots. SUV sales are in free fall.

The wholesale flight from gas guzzlers is stunning in its swiftness, but utterly predictable. Everything has a price point. Remember that “love affair” with SUVs? Love, it seems, has its price, too.

America's sudden change in car-buying habits makes suitable mockery of that absurd debate Congress put on last December on fuel-efficiency standards. At stake was precisely what miles-per-gallon average every car company's fleet would have to meet by precisely what date.

It was one out of a hat number (35 mpg) compounded by another (by 2020). It involved, as always, dozens of regulations, loopholes and throws at a dartboard. And we already knew from history what the fleet average number does. When oil is cheap and everybody wants a gas guzzler, fuel-efficiency standards force manufacturers to make cars that nobody wants to buy. When gas prices go through the roof, this agent of inefficiency becomes an utter redundancy.

At $4 a gallon, the fleet composition is changing spontaneously and overnight, not over the 13 years mandated by Congress. (Even Stalin had the modesty to restrict himself to five-year plans.) Just Tuesday, GM announced it would shutter four SUV and truck plants, add a third shift to its compact and midsize sedan plants in Ohio and Michigan, and green light for 2010 the Chevy Volt, an electric hybrid.

Some things, like renal physiology, are difficult. Some things, like Arab-Israeli peace, are impossible. And some things are preternaturally simple. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.

Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us – and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.

This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with “The Oil-Bust Panic,” The New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. In this space in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for “the government – through a tax – to establish a new floor for gasoline,” by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.

But instead of doing the obvious – taxing it – we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate is debating this week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.

Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits, and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand – and bring down world crude oil prices – the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.

Herewith concludes my annual exercise in futility. By the time I advocate the tax floor again next year, you'll be paying for gas in bullion.

---

me@rescam.org

When gasoline prices force change

The real 'terrorists' have won... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Our family did something about fuel costs almost two and half years ago. We replaced a really worn out minivan with a Prius hybrid. Got us a significant tax credit as well.

Being retired for thirteen years, we no longer need to commute. And when we worked we often used bikes for transport as we were less than eight miles from from home to office.

We do plan our trips to stores rather carefully to minimize both distance and congestion. The latter is a smaller factor in fuel use, but why sit in a box stalled in traffic jams.

A significant factor will be filling our heating oil tank, which is now nearly depleted. Current price is out of sight. We burn one oversized tank a year on average with present furnace. The original furnace used a thousand gallons a year. We now are using under three hundred ten gallons. A setback thermostat keeps track of fuel use and is programmed to drop temperature in winter between midnight and 0630. If we worked the day time would also be set back.

If necessary we could survive using five gallons or less of gas per month. We do need heat in the winter.So our oil tank will be filled when and or if the price is lower.

duke


PS: Mr Krauthammer's idea of a fuel tax to reduce income tax misses the need to reduce the bloated federal debt first. Our family can't operate with debt hanging over our heads, neither should the US treasury!