GAS PRICES ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

[Reatta Man]

For once, Dave and I agree on something.

Yes, the Texas City refinery fire WILL make gas more expensive, probably almost immediately. That is the gas that was pumped out of the ground months ago, refined 30-45 days ago, and distributed to your gas station 1-2 weeks ago will suddenly become more expensive overnight. THAT, my friends is GREED. Pure and simple.

[ranchero]

Dave - Good morning from Cheyenne; our local refinery (Frontier) is up and working well. I am going to do nothing to conserve fuel, oil or energy; I am going to use as much fuel as I want and not complain about the price. I believe that domestic demand is relatively inelastic and that our attempts at conservation are not an appropriate response - especially when the world supply is pressured by rapidly rising demand in the growing Chinese economy. Oh, I may ride my motorcycle on local errands when it gets a bit warmer here; that'll save a few gallons now and again. However I believe that with inelastic demand that the only way to make fuel prices more palatable is to increase supply. Therefore, I will continue to vote for politicians who recognize and want to exploit the unused resource potential at ANWR as well as off the coasts of California, Florida, Louisiana and the untapped potential of all energy resources in the Rocky Mountain west. I also support construction of new refineries, offshore LNG terminals and nuclear power plants - now. - Ranchero -

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am going to use as much fuel as I want and not complain about the price. </div></div>

Osama thanks you. It might be a good idea to try to keep this information away from any dead Marines' mothers, though.

Addiction is denial.

[Guest Skyking]

Does anyone on this forum find it ironic that there have been way too many oil spills, both in the ocean and on our highways lately? Now this fire......I don't know about anyone else,..... but all accidents???

[ranchero]

Dear Dave: "Osama" and "Marine's mothers" are not very sensitive responses to a post about the economics and production of energy. You may understand some science. I understand economics and world trade. In commenting about my interest in developing DOMESTIC energy resources, you use hot words which relate to national defense and foreign affairs issues. My post indicated that we should use our own DOMESTIC resources. We can be energy self-sufficent but we need to explore, build, drill, produce, ship and refine. We can also take advantage of the almost domestic supply in northern Alberta; the pacifist Canadians are happy to sell us beef, wood and even energy. It is possible that there are no sources of energy near Cincinnati and you think that it is all imported from very distant foreign countries. There is plenty around us in Wyoming. Here we go get it. You may wish to sell your Buick and ride a city bus. In Wyoming we don't do it that way; we drive our needed vehicles hundreds of miles daily to ranches, wells, towns, schools and jobs. We need vehicles and we rely on personal transportation to make our livings. We also go find and develop the energy and we use what we need when we want. Respectfully yours - Ranchero -

ps - I am going to drive my 455 four barrel boattail on "earth day" next month.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Dear Dave: "Osama" and "Marine's mothers" are not very sensitive responses to a post about the economics and production of energy. </div></div>

Ranchero,

Your friends in the GOP won't tell you this, but effectively we don't have any reserves. You don't just drill anywhere you want and find vast sums of oil. Geologists have been exploring this continent for about 150 years now loking for the stuff and it's all been found. Ask the President, he's one of the last guys left who went broke trying to squeeze these stones one more time.

The mother lodes in Alberta and Wyoming are mainly in oil shale, where you have to burn 1.5 BTUs of energy to extract 1 BTU of oil from the shale. It ain't happenin'. The <span style="font-style: italic">most wildly optimistic</span> projections of domestic oil productions (after all the environmentalists have been shot and Hummers rule the world) don't even come close to supplying even our present (and <span style="font-style: italic">still</span> growing) needs. In fact we'll never be able to get back to even 1/2 domestic production (where we were 20 years ago) ever again no matter what.

Oh, there's enough there so that there's money to be made--especially in Alaska and especially if we can kill off a few species along the way--but not enough to make for any practicable difference in how the world works or how we live our lives.

So when, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am going to drive my 455 four barrel boattail on "earth day" next month. </div></div>

...you <span style="font-weight: bold">will</span>, in part, be funding the bastards that are killing our kids. I will too, whether I drive my 364 or my 2.0L. Period.

If you don't like it, maybe try and do something <span style="font-weight: bold">tenable</span> about it. Pretending you can drill your uncle's farm and power your car is silly. [color:\\"red\\"]But then there are a lot of Wyoming politicians (to say nothing of Texas, Lousiana, California, Alaska, etc. etc. etc,) who have long careers and serious incomes to protect by convincing you it isn't silly (or at least subtly sneaking in references under the radar that promoting domestic production is for the country's good and not their <span style="font-style: italic">real</span> employers' [color:"green"]{e.g. contributors} benefit.)

Meanwhile guys named Jeff are still getting killed in Iraq, and itchy eyeballs keep looking over into Iran and Syria.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am going to drive my 455 four barrel boattail on "earth day" next month. </div></div>

I think it's highly debatable which one of us has the insensitive response.

[imported_buick5563]

Ranchero,

That'll show 'em

Mike

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does anyone on this forum find it ironic that there have been way too many oil spills, both in the ocean and on our highways lately? Now this fire......I don't know about anyone else,..... but all accidents??? </div></div>

It <span style="font-style: italic">is</span> getting to be a bit of a stretch of bad coincidences. None have been knockout blows as yet, though. I think if there were insidious forces behind it we'd be a lot worse off now than we are.

4 or 5 suicide pilots in rented private planes could effectively end gasoline production here for months without so much as buying a single box cutter. If they want us, they can have us. We won't have to guess.

[Dave@Moon]

Now does anybody have anything <span style="font-weight: bold">constructive</span> to offer?

For instance I recently came across outdoor safe compact fluorescent bulbs at <span style="font-style: italic">Home Depot</span>, which has helped cut my electric usage even more (about $1.50/mo., and I only have 3 and don't use them all that much). A 60 watt bulb burning 24 hours a day for a year burns the equivalent of 11 gallons of fuel oil. My (brighter) bulbs are 15 watt!

[ranchero]

Dear Dave: Thank you for for your quite eastern analysis. I did not know that I was "GOP"; thanks for categorizing me. Now I know. I never knew that; I did know that my difference with you is that I am a westerner. What you enviro types (and dare I say many Democrats?) always fail to take into account is economics. I am convinced you do not understand supply and demand. In production of energy resources, you do not understand that a resource which at one time was impossible to take out of the earth cheaply may now be quite profitable due to changes in the demand for the resource. We had oil shale development and uranimum development in the Rockies in the 1970s. Those became fruitless to pursue when the world price for energy fell as demand declined. The same applies to the tar sands in northern Alberta. But now oil shale in Colorado, uranium in Utah, tar sands in Alberta and coal bed methane in Wyoming have become attractive for developers to go get. You know nothing about the economics of energy; you simply know that once in the past it was too expensive to develop the resources that are there for the taking. And you were correct; at one time those resources were not economically viable. But they are now! Wyoming has no state income tax and a $1 billion revenue surplus. We do not have to increase taxes like you do in Ohio. The reason is that we have mineral resources that have become profitable to extract in the last several years and we pay for our state by severance taxes on energy sold to you in the east. In fact sir, a privately owned railroad is building a new line into northeast Wyoming just to be able to serve the extractive industry in that corner of the state. The reason to risk private capital on such a speculative venture is that the world market for energy justifies paying for the minerals and for the transportation to use it in power plants in the east. Unlike static budget scoring by "Democrat" participants in our federal government, we in the west and members of the "GOP" understand that dynamic scoring (taking into account changes in economic paramaters) matters. The demand for energy in the world makes our mineral resources more desirable than ever. Or, you could simply complain about arabian oil and save a whale or two. Respectfully submitted - Ranchero -

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I am convinced you do not understand supply and demand. In production of energy resources, you do not understand that a resource which at one time was impossible to take out of the earth cheaply may now be quite profitable due to changes in the demand for the resource. </div></div>

And I'm convinced that you don't understand that no matter how cheap or efficient you produce the BTUs needed to produce oil from most oil shales, when you're using more BTU's than you're producing you're not making <span style="font-style: italic">anything!</span> Whether you're wasting nickles or dollars doesn't matter.

It's funny how oil guys can see that argument perfectly when they're talking about ethanol production. Hmmm....

How is any of this <span style="font-weight: bold">constructive</span>?

[55PackardGuy]

I think it cuts both ways. As the economics for production becomes more attractive, the economics for conservation does, too--and also the willingness to do some "belt-tightening." It's worth it, for instance, to buy more expensive light bulbs that save energy because the pay-back is quicker. The same with an expensive high-efficiency furnace etc. You might be willing to forego solo commuting in the crew-cab dually 4x4 and take the sedan (or *gasp* a passenger). This is probably good. It's conservation. Like in "conservative" right? Or so I always thought the best part of conservatism was.

I'm afraid there are very grim consequences for taking a "consumption-is-good-we'll-just-get-more-by-God" approach when dealing with finite resources. It does lead to war, especially when people get desperate, and even when they just get greedy. It also, ultimately, leads to depletion of the resource. NOTHING is forever if it's in the ground. It is true that actual oil reserves are most likely greater than "proven" reserves due to a very simple economic reason. It costs money to "prove" reserves. There is no incentive to account for every drop available, so projections are only made enough years out to assure supplies are uninterrupted in the near term. The truth is NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE how much of a resource like oil exists, but we DO know that it's finite, and it is high time (for political, environmental and economic reasons) to conserve what we have now and look for alternatives. It won't be so bad. Honestly, I really don't think switching to another major fuel source will be as traumatic as so many seem to believe.

I'm voting for solar-generated electricity! Call me crazy, but the sun is the most plentiful and inexhaustible energy source we have. Every drop of oil in the ground now is there courtesy of the sun, it was just cycled through carbon-based life forms. I say we cut out the middle-man!

And if cheap, plentiful, energy is available, electrically powered vehicles will suddenly make a lot of sense. Just like gasoline powered vehicles did when oil became cheap and plentiful.

The vehicles will follow the energy source, and not vice-versa. Engineering and practical problems that are evident in electric vehicles now will definitely be surmountable. I got a little post on this in that other thread about $2.00 gas.

[Charles2]

Dear Mr. Ranchero, I'm a lifelong westerner and I disagree with just about everything you have said. The West is pretty much controlled by the extractive industries. When they start paying the full cost of producing their products then I may start changing my mind. But they don't and they leave a big mess behind just about everywhere they go. And, the politicians from the western states keep looking for federal subsidy for everything from mining and timber to livestock grazing, water and land development (but not for cleanup or responsible environmental stewardship). So in fact, the so-called self-sufficient western life-style is heavily subsidized by taxpayers from both the East and West coasts. If it weren't for customers back East (and on the left coast) and the tax money they provide to subsidize grazing, mining, timber harvest etc., a lot of people in Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and such would be quietly starving to death. The real problem with this country isn't the "damn" easterners, it's that there are too many people wanting finite resources which are being unthinkingly and unsustainably used. And, personally, I think that driving a fuel hog just to soothe ones ego is a bit on the unthinking side.

[Reatta Man]

Packard,

I guess when some people say things like "the GOP won't tell you we have no reserves" they forgetfully or intentionally fail to mention that as of 25 March, there are 687 MILLION BARRELS of oil in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. To see the current inventory for yourself, go to http://www2.spr.doe.gov/DIR/SilverStream/Pages/pgDailyInventoryReportViewDOE_new.html

These same people also forget to mention that if ANWR is developed, it looks as if it will supply at least 1 million barrels per day for 30-50 years, with a total avaialble (recoverable) reserve of up to 16 billion barrels.

From the www.anwr.org Web site:

QUOTEStudies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay.

UNQUOTE

By the way, the anti-oil crowd also said the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, for which the Alaskan pipeline was build, only had a few months supply. It turned out to be the largest oil field EVER discovered in North American, and has produced to date 13 billion barrels of oil, which is 20% of the domestic requirements, and made a $300 billion offset in our favor in the national trade deficit.

I'm not pro-oil or anti-electric; but I do know there are problems you have to work out in advance. For example, if California were facing another brown-out in a peak month due to heavy A/C usage, would the state tell people to NOT plug in their electric cars because their grid can't handle the load?

Hmmmmm....

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Packard,

I guess when some people say things like "the GOP won't tell you we have no reserves" they forgetfully or intentionally fail to mention that as of 25 March, there are 687 MILLION BARRELS of oil in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. To see the current inventory for yourself, go to http://www2.spr.doe.gov/DIR/SilverStream/Pages/pgDailyInventoryReportViewDOE_new.html

These same people also forget to mention that if ANWR is developed, it looks as if it will supply at least 1 million barrels per day for 30-50 years, with a total avaialble (recoverable) reserve of up to 16 billion barrels.

From the www.anwr.org Web site:

QUOTEStudies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay.

UNQUOTE

By the way, the anti-oil crowd also said the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, for which the Alaskan pipeline was build, only had a few months supply. It turned out to be the largest oil field EVER discovered in North American, and has produced to date 13 billion barrels of oil, which is 20% of the domestic requirements, and made a $300 billion offset in our favor in the national trade deficit. </div></div>

Those numbers are all fine and dandy. In fact I posted them ten months ago on this thread already.

But I posted them along with overall consumption data that makes "millions of barrels" sound exactly as small as it really is. Scan back up and look at <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> the DOE data <span style="font-weight: bold">in perspective</span>.

You're being played, and not by any mythical wealthy environmentalist crowd either.

[Reatta Man]

I wonder how she posted the balance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 25 March 2005 months ago?

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I wonder how she posted the balance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 25 March 2005 months ago? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's kind of hard to beat someone with 2 Master's Degrees in Environmental Science in a discussion like this. Especially when there's so much "information" out there. You can find all the "information" you want, it's more a matter of accuracy.

The United States currently consumes about 19 million barrels of crude oil per day according to the United States Dept. of Energy . (That's up from 15 million barrels in 1985, by the way.) At 42 gallons per standard barrel, that's 800 million gallons per day. At 365 days/year that's an annual consumption of 291 trillion gallons. For there to be 50 years supply of oil in the untapped Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) there would need to be 14.5 quadrillion gallons of crude underneath the relatively tiny area in the ANWR closed to drilling (17.5 million acres).

Plus you could toss in about 10 billion more gallons for the 12 leap years I didn't bother counting.

That 14.5 quadrillion gallons converts to around 44 million acre-feet of oil. For 50 years worth of crude oil to be located in the ANWR the entire land mass would have to be floating on a layer of crude oil a little over 2.5 feet thick. That's not 2.5 feet of oil bearing substrate, that's raw liquid. It's also a complete impossibility.

If you're interested in the maximum potential of the oil fields in the ANWR, here's what Haliburton's...I mean the President's, ...I mean <span style="font-weight: bold">your</span> DOE officially considers it to be:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In early 2000, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in response to a Congressional request, issued a report on potential oil reserves and production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The report, which cited a 1998 U.S. Geological Survey study of ANWR oil resources, projected that for the mean resource case (10.3 billion barrels technically recoverable), ANWR peak production rates could range from 1.0 to 1.35 MMBD, with initial ANWR production possibly beginning around 2010, and peak production 20-30 years after that.

<span style="font-style: italic">(MMBD equals million barrels per day)</span></div></div>

As you can see, under the most optimistic analysis of the region possible <span style="font-style: italic">(the DOE under this administration is essentially an oil and mining industry front organization)</span> this region can sustain about 1/20th of our current consumption, and the soonest <span style="font-weight: bold">that</span> could occur is in <span style="font-weight: bold">the year 2030</span>. If we abandon all thought of practicality and pretend to suck the place dry overnight the entire 10.3 billion barrel reserve there is a little less than a year and a half supply at current consumption levels. <span style="font-style: italic">That's</span> <span style="font-weight: bold">by far</span> the highest number I've <span style="font-style: italic">ever</span> heard for that field--again, this is <span style="font-style: italic">Bush & Cheney's</span> DOE we're talking about!. Most impartial estimates are a lot less.

I hate to say I told you so, but....

Oh, by the way, <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">ANY</span></span> study purporting to disprove global warming at this point is also essentially a snow job. There are thousands of Environmental PhD's on one side of that discussion vs. a couple dozen hired Shell Answer Men. But I digress....

Are you feeling used yet?

<span style="font-weight: bold">[color:\\"red\\"]The most important consideration is to think of <span style="font-style: italic">WHY?</span>! <span style="font-style: italic">Why</span> is it important to make U.S. citizens believe complete lies about oil reserves, climatic forces, and a host of other absurdities that can easily be checked?

The DOE estimated ANWR reserves at today's closing price were worth $431 billion.</span>

Who did you vote for? </div></div>

I assume through the insults you're talking about me. It appears I didn't, so here it is:

687 million barrels divided by 19 million barrels/day rate of consumption equals [color:\\"purple\\"]<span style="font-weight: bold">a 36 days supply.</span> I'll sleep better tonight.

[color:\\"green\\"] By the way, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency cache of petroleum the govenment has purchased over time. In addition to being a pathetically tiny store meant mainly to keep the military supplied in case of war, it has nothing to do with future yield or potential.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The DOE estimated ANWR reserves at today's closing price were worth $431 billion. </div></div>

By the way, using yesterday's closing price that oil field is now worth $565 billion. That's <span style="font-style: italic">why</span> you're being played.

[Reatta Man]

There are definitely a lot of misstatements in this forum that need standing by.

[ranchero]

To the enemies of the extractive industries in the west: I admit that I have very great bias in favor of these resource developers. The value of the Exxon-Mobil stock I own has multiplied many times over during my holding period. I bought more as the enviros "screamed wolf" when some oil fell from an Exxon boat into Alaskan waters; the value of Exxon-Mobil stock is up a lot since that event. These extractive industries have paid for a lot of government in the west and provide important, high paying jobs in our economy. So as a citizen of the west, I want more development of our resources. If and when it becomes cheaper and easier to use a different type of power for our vehicles; I am for it. Diesel replaced coal fired steam because of economics - not because of conservation or enviromental issues. If the competitive market can provide a quick, reliable, easy to fuel and competitive solar/hydrogen/whatever car then I will be open to one. Until that time, I am using petro powered cars without concern about conservation of the fuels. Respectfully - Ranchero -

[Guest AlK]

These are the three comments that I would like to respond to:...............

((The question is, what are you willing to give up for your gas mileage? There's no magic bullet or 100 MPG carburetor they're holding back because of oil companies. They've already done all the easy, cheap things to get better mileage, now it's a matter of expensive technology, whether it is a hybrid drivetrain of some sort or exotic materials for lighter weight. Or you can simply make the cars smaller, but that doesn't really appeal to the American consumer in large numbers.

To make some great leap in mileage, consumers will either 1) pay more for a vehicle, 2) suffer with inferior performance in a large vehicle, or 3) buy smaller vehicles. ))))

(lean-burn technology is just now starting to come to the market),

Matt: Do you work for the oil companies??????????

Contrary to your beliefs, I have to say you are wrong to a degree.

Proof of point: If you search the U.S patent office and look into some old issues of Popular Science Magazine, you will find reference to the POGUE(spelling) carbuerator(circa 1936(?)). It was reported to get some where in the area of not 100 MPG but 200+ MPG. This is not a flight of fancy or a rumor. The carb existed, The technology to build it existed, and still exists today and the technology to improve the design is there as well if it were not for the oil companies suppressing the information. It had one major problem it had a tendency to explode(not good in a family car), because it pre-heated the gas before it got to the combustion chamber, much like the glow plug on my 1 ton dually diesel which gets between 13 - 15 mpg. Figure out that weight to gas consumption ratio. If they can do that with the monster I drive they can do it with the bean bags they are selling these days. They can also fix the inherent problem with the carb to make it safer.

((great leap of mileage)))))

Fast forward to 1984-86, I am not sure of the exact year. A man named Moody equipped, in his garage, a ford mustang of current vintage, with many popular add-ons that could be bought at the local parts house and proceeded to drive from Florida to Washington D.C. at an average speed of over 65 mph and got 84 MPG. These add-ons are readily available to the auto giants but they are not interested in anything that detracts from their bed partner(read - the oil companies) In the resulting news media blitz Mr. Moody swore that this technology would be brought to the public eye and would not be suppressed. Anybody ever hear of or from him again. Right. You may not want to accept or even believe it and that is a right I would fight to the death to preserve, but while you have the right to believe what you want you also have the right to be wrong and your wrong. There is a conspiracy in this country to not only hide major improvements in gas consumption but to downright cover them up and with cement if necessary. What do you think the gas companies would do if the price of gas was back to $.35 a gallon where it should be. They would not be making billions and billions of dollars they would only be making millions instead and I think we all know that would not be enough. Look at the excuses they use to raise the price of gas. If a refinery is shut down for an hour or two the price of gas goes up 2 to 12 cents and THATS FOR THE GAS IN THE GROUND THAT WAS ALREADY PAID FOR -- HELLO. By the same token when that refinery comes back on line later in the day does the price recede hell no. That my friend is a conspiracy of the first order. Our allies overseas say they have to pay high prices, therefore so should we. Horse pucky. We have our own reserves. If we weren't selling it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry we would be in high cotton. We have reserves that very few people know about. The places that we do know about are in Texas, Calif, Penn., W.VA., Alaska, and Louisiana, and none of them are tapped out. And yet we are buying foriegn oil???? Here's yur sign. The high cost of refining? again horse pucky, the process has not changed in 100 years, just like the internal combustion engine. Newer and better equipment, maybe, but the process is about the same. More on conspiracy, how much more do you want? How about 1973 when the 7 sisters of the oil industry pulled the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the american public and it is still going on today. Unleaded fuel. Before 1973 lead had to be added to gas to lubricate valves. The government then calls for the auto giants to make cars that will run only on unleaded fuel. Then the so called oil shortage comes along and the 7 sisters say "well the government has mandated that the auto giants use only unleaded fuel so we will not make leaded fuel but unleaded fuel and oh by the way we will have to charge more for that because we have to take out the lead" HELLO the natural refining process produces unleaded fuel, remember lead had to added. So they doubled gas prices for "N O T" doing something and they are still doing it today. Here's yur sign. How many of you guys remember AMOCO white gas???? English translation unleaded fuel, and if I am not mistaken it was the cheapest gas around cheaper even than Gulftane.

((Lean burn technology is JUST starting to hit the market)).

Did you just land here in the Saturn turnip ship???? In the 1970's chrysler had lean burn engines in BIG, BIG cars. I'm talking 4500 lb 4 dr sedans with every convenience that was available, on a trip from Albany New York, to Washington D.C. in the dead of winter, 2 feet of snow on the ground, 22MPG in a new yorker. That was the problem. The gas mileage was to good so something had to be done to quash that benefit to the automotive public. That system lasted about 2 years and then was gone. More Conspiracy. Now you guys can argue all you want about the war, or the canadiens buying our gas or the relative merits of smaller vs bigger cars, suv's and the like, but try looking at it from the standpoint that no matter your position on any of those subjects, the situation is never, repeat NEVER going to change until we get the oil company giants into some type of reservation and take control of them and stop letting them rule everything in our lives. Just once I'd like to hear from those &$%&^&*(&^ *%&%$%&^ and have them speak the truth and say , yes we are out to rape every penny we can from you and we will contiue to do it because we can and there is nothing you can do about it. At least once it's said they would then be honest thieves, instead this pussy footing around the truth.

[Matt Harwood]

Oh my, someone is <span style="font-style: italic">very</span> confused or this is a joke I'm not getting.

Show me evidence of the 200 MPG carburetor, and I'll happily believe you. Show me the miracle Mustang that had simple bolt-ons that allowed it to get such astounding mileage. I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion if facts are presented. I'll even cop to being wrong if it turns out that such an animal exists and can be documented (I'm one of the few crackpots on here who actually apologizes and drops a <span style="font-style: italic">mea culpa</span> when I screw up--see my comments on the 2005 Mustang in the Misc. Chat section for example). And since I have a Mustang, please give me that list of parts I can use to get it out of the teens as far as gas mileage ASAP--I could definitely use the cash! But I'm not going to put on my tinfoil hat and join you in the compound until I see proof beyond some crackpot's website.

Here's some more info from reliable sources:

The Straight Dope--Are the oil companies surpressing the 200 MPG miracle carburetor? (this link is about as close to admitting such a thing exists as I've seen from a <span style="font-style: italic">reliable</span> source)

The Pogue carburetor you mention also violates the First Law of Thermodynamics:

The Fish Carburetor Book

The AAA also questions its veracity:

http://www.aaaworld.com/pages/articles.asp?id=113

You're also skipping some facts. Burning gasoline mixed with air allows about 35% of the energy in the gasoline to be extracted in the form of <span style="font-style: italic">work</span>. There's not much you can do to change that because combustion is an exothermic reaction and most of its energy is lost as heat that is absorbed by the engine block and rejected through the radiator. To say that doing something to the fuel prior to combustion will somehow leapfrog over the First Law of Thermodynamics is, to put it bluntly, <span style="font-style: italic">impossible.</span> Now, I only studied thermodyamics for 2 years en route to earning a BS in engineering, and I don't use it every day, so I could be rusty. I'm certainly willing to admit that anything is possible, just not probable (and without substantial proof, you may as well start yelling about how the CIA killed JFK, too).

Plus you're missing out on the biggest "DUH" factor of all: <span style="font-style: italic">money.</span> Sure, we all like to believe that the oil companies are evil and want to suppress anything that gets in the way of making money. But if a device existed that would allow cars to get astounding fuel mileage without any sort of penalty, <span style="font-style: italic">it would exist</span> in the real world. Whomever got such a device to market first would be wealthy beyond all dreams. The automakers would <span style="font-style: italic">love</span> to have such technology and are at least as powerful as the oil companies, no? Or perhaps some clever Japanese engineer could come up with it--they were out of reach of big oil for quite some time. So where is it--there's no good reason for it to not be available today. None. Unfortunately, it only seems to exist in the minds of gullible Internet noobs and conspiracy geeks who swallow what the hucksters are selling (not that you're either of those things, <span style="font-weight: bold">AlK</span>).

As for lean-burn, the Chryslers equipped with it in the '70s were vastly different from what I was referring to. Today's lean-burn cars run well under stochiometric at part-throttle conditions, up to 22:1 (stoic. is 14.7:1). However, they can only do this under very specific conditions because of skyrocketing oxides of nitrogen that are generated. The '70s Chrysler "Lean Burn" technology had nothing to do with fuel charges--it was simply an igntion module for driveability issues related to primitive computer controlled carburetors.

Here's more (found at http://www.allpar.com/corporate/alternative-fuels.html):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Lanny Knutson wrote about Lean Burn in the Plymouth Bulletin (reprinted by permission):

A new electronic spark advance module called Lean Burn was introduced by Chrysler [in 1976] on all its 400 and 440 engines. Six sensors monitored the engine RPM, manifold vacuum, water temperature, ambient temperature, intake air temperature and throttle position, sending the data to a small computer unit mounted on the air filter housing. A pioneering version of what is now under the hood of nearly every contemporary car, Lean Burn was designed to avoid the driveability problems usually arising from manually leaned carburetors. Although it gained approximately one mile per gallon, the primary purpose of the system was controlling emissions inside the engine. For a time, it permitted Chrysler to avoid use of expensive power-robbing catalytic converters. In 1977 Lean Burn was extended to the 360 engine.

</div></div>

Also, I wrote all that stuff nearly a year ago, so drawing me into this this flame war today was kind of a sucker-punch. <span style="font-style: italic">Thanks a lot.</span>

I think I'm going to take a break from this place. Everyone has an axe to grind lately, and nothing can be said without a flame war--and I'm also guilty of having strong opinions, too, so I'm not singling anyone out. I'm just tired. See you guys later, maybe at a show or something. E-mail me at toolman8@sbcglobal.net if you want to talk cars, otherwise, I'm going to take a break for a while.

[Dave@Moon]

If anyone's interested in what's really going on, read The Long Emergency, What's going to happen as we start running out of cheap gas to guzzle? . The link is for an excerpt of the book, due out in May, which is very germain to this "discussion". It's well documented, using mainly oil industry and Bush administration sources.

Don't read it if you're already in a bad mood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[color:\\"red\\"] The wonders of steady technological progress achieved through the reign of cheap oil have lulled us into a kind of Jiminy Cricket syndrome, leading many Americans to believe that anything we wish for hard enough will come true. </div></div>

It's a little scary, especially in the short term where worldwide oil production is expected to begin it's decline in 2006 (<span style="font-style: italic">by the Bush Administration, among others</span>), but it's the most reasoned projection of where this thing is going that I've come across.

[Guest John Chapman]

Isn't this the same sort of prognostication that preceded Y2K? While much of what he has to say has merit, I think we'll find the population much more adaptive and resourceful than given credit.

JMC

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Isn't this the same sort of prognostication that preceded Y2K? While much of what he has to say has merit, I think we'll find the population much more adaptive and resourceful than given credit.

JMC </div></div>

I think "being adaptive" is what he means by <span style="font-style: italic">"It will change everything about how we live."</span>

Also Y2K fears were based on false assumption that were disputed from the beginning. His scenarios are based on the most credible estimates available, mainly DOE and industry figures. He is spot on with every oil industry estimate, while being discerning about the quality of the remaining reserves. He's a little conservative on replacement technology potentials, especially coal, but not overly pessimistic. Besides, it seems to be a better approach logically than the Pollyanna approach that seems to be the preferred alternative here.

[Guest AlK]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Isn't this the same sort of prognostication that preceded Y2K? While much of what he has to say has merit, I think we'll find the population much more adaptive and resourceful than given credit.JMC </div></div>I think "being adaptive" is what he means by <span style="font-style: italic">"It will change everything about how we live."</span> Also Y2K fears were based on false assumption that were disputed from the beginning. His scenarios are based on the most credible estimates available, mainly DOE and industry figures. He is spot on with every oil industry estimate, while being discerning about the quality of the remaining reserves. He's a little conservative on replacement technology potentials, especially coal, but not overly pessimistic. Besides, it seems to be a better approach logically than the Pollyanna approach that seems to be the preferred alternative here. </div></div> Is it not possible that these dire predictions are also based on false assumpyions. We are taking the Oil industrys word and the governments word(and they would not try to deceive or lie to us would they) that this is the way of the future.Is it not akin to letting the fox set up the security system for the hen house. My good God if one were to fully believe even half of what's in that article. the best suggestion I could make would be to drink the cool-aid now and get it over with.

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Packard,

I guess when some people say things like "the GOP won't tell you we have no reserves" they forgetfully or intentionally fail to mention...</div></div>

Y'know, I have not once mentioned any political affiliation in any of my posts, yet on two different threads I have been accused of being affiliated with two different factions. I think I'm onto something.

[Guest AWBE]

You, sir-----are one smart sucker. In addition to walking around sense, you also have XOM stock (as do I----to the tune of $51K worth,for which I paid $8K about 9 years ago). Gosh---I wish I had more education so maybe I would have invested in a "Green" muyual fund.

[Reatta Man]

Be careful, guys. Dave will add you to the list she has put me on--being compared to Stalin, AND a REPUBLICAN (oh, horror!)

She doesn't like it when you bring up FACTS.

Joe "Stalin" W

[Guest AlK]

Matt:First let me say that if my comments drove you into exile, such was not my intent. As for arguing Laws of Thermodynamics, Physics or anyhing like that I pass as I have absolutly no knowledge or education on the subject. That said, what I do have, I think, is a fair amount of common sense. You said show you evidence of a 200 MPG carb and you would beleive me. O.K. Challange accepted. Go to your search engine and look up POGUE CARB and read the articles that you find. Keep in mind I make no claim that the device is theorhetically functional or that it works under any and all circumstances, but it was made and did exist and the oil companies did everything in their power to suppress it. Now I expect a response from you that you acknowledge its existance as you said you would do. For the "miracle Mustang" as yet I have not found the articles that I know I read and saw, but I will dig further. The bolt ons that I remember are ones that we all know will increase mileage. Take any 70' small block v-8, add HEI, headers, different more efficient carbs and you can squeeze quite a few MPG out of them, this is known and proven technology. It is not such a leap of faith that to apply the same concept to a lighter vehicle, add 15 years of advanced technology, that we could get 80+ MPG out of a car. With technology of today the Honda CRX gets 60+ MPG. With certain, tweaks and twonks could it get 100+, I say it's possible. Do I know of one, no. Do you say it is not possible because no one has done it, if so then like any self respecting ostrich you have to bury your head in the sand. As to the veracity of the governments claims and/or the oil companies, would you or any other intelligent individual accept the word of either of those entities for anything. They have habitually and continually lied to and deceived us on any point you care to name. So why should we believe them. By the same token should we dis-believe them and believe the doomsayers like the EPA, or Sierra club, or any of the tree huggers organizations. Hell no. In any of the agendas of any of these organizations there may be a sliver of truth, and that is what we have to find. But the whole truth has to come from someone without a prearranged agenda and that leaves out any and all of the organizations I have named. Do I know where the whole truth will come from, NOPE, but I think I will know it when I see it. As for flame posts, and/or sucker punching you, I have no idea what you are referring to. I have been off this site for over 2 months concentrating on another site that I am involved with that is totally non-auto related, so I am just catching up. That is when I read this thread and responded. If my responses put you off your feed sorry, that was not my intent.

[Guest AWBE]

Is Dave a woman?????? You keep referring to Dave Moon as "she" and "her".

[Guest AWBE]

Well-----I looked at her profile and she says she is a housewife. Being the male chauvanist pig that I am----that explains it all.

[Dave@Moon]

I guess there are short easy answers to everything.

[Matt Harwood]

<span style="font-weight: bold">AlK</span>, I really, <span style="font-style: italic">really</span> don?t want to do this. No good will come of this discussion. You?re 100% set in your beliefs, you obviously don?t want to see anything that runs contrary to them, and you seem to easily confuse common sense with knowledge. Nothing I say here will change your mind and all this discussion is going to do is raise your hackles to the point where you feel you have to argue your point into the ground, facts be damned, because of pride and honor. You pulled me into a year-old flame war that I was intentionally trying to avoid and then you question my integrity by demanding that I respond to you. <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">I already have and you flat-out ignored it.</span></span> I?m guessing that you?re exactly like the rest of the world in that you don?t like to be wrong, and you definitely don?t like someone <span style="font-style: italic">proving</span> it. This is gonna sting a little, I?m afraid.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You said show you evidence of a 200 MPG carb and you would beleive me. O.K. Challange accepted. Go to your search engine and look up POGUE CARB and read the articles that you find. Keep in mind I make no claim that the device is theorhetically functional or that it works under any and all circumstances, but it was made and did exist and the oil companies did everything in their power to suppress it. </div></div>

If you had bothered to read <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> of the links I provided above (which I found by simply typing<span style="font-weight: bold"> ?Pogue Carburetor?</span> into Google?all three links were on the first page of results), you would know that I do not deny that Farmer Pogue invented a carburetor back in the mid-?30s. For every crackpot's website I found saying it did work, there were fifty with math and science proving it didn't. The second link in my post above even specifically mentions reasons why it can't exist that are the result of nothing more than <span style="font-style: italic">common sense reasoning!</span> Isn't common sense your great reasoning tool?

<span style="font-weight: bold">Let me make this perfectly clear: I am not denying the existence of this device. <span style="font-style: italic">I am denying the claims of its abilities.</span> </span>

There?s a very big difference there. I acknowledge that it existed, that some farmer built this thing in his barn?are you happy? Of course not; what you want is for me to believe the claims of 200 MPG, your oil company conspiracy theory and that everyone but the ?true believers? such as yourself are simply hapless rubes who have been duped by corporate greed and the evil oil companies. Sorry, I can?t and I won?t do any of that?science and rational thought makes it an impossibility.

Here?s some more?not that you?ll read it or anything, <span style="font-weight: bold">AlK</span> (because Snopes must be in on the gag, too): http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As for arguing Laws of Thermodynamics, Physics or anyhing like that I pass as I have absolutly no knowledge or education on the subject. That said, what I do have, I think, is a fair amount of common sense.</div></div>

Then you need to stick to what you know. I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and part of earning that degree was four semesters of thermodynamics, three of chemistry and four of physics. I graduated Summa Cum Laude, which means I was really, really good at that stuff. I also spent a lot of years designing and building cars for a major auto manufacturer, with a massive budget and the ability to try new technologies. Guess what?we were instructed to find a way to improve gas mileage, <span style="font-style: italic">even by 1 MPG,</span> at all costs! They didn't mention that our lives were in danger if we somehow achieved success...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Keep in mind I make no claim that the device is theorhetically functional or that it works under any and all circumstances, but it was made and did exist and the oil companies did everything in their power to suppress it.</div></div>

Ah, the old back door technique?so you can back out gracefully, ego intact, and claim that you didn't really believe it after you get your ass handed to you. <span style="font-style: italic">Nice.</span>

What you?re really doing is confusing belief with fact and using specious and circular reasoning to back yourself up. There?s no evidence of the 200 MPG carburetor?s success. In your mind, that?s as it should be, because the oil companies have suppressed the evidence you need. So you can continue to believe it, secure in the knowledge that the facts you need to support your case are long buried by oil execs. You don?t need proof because the only proof you need is your belief that the proof has been destroyed. The mere fact that it doesn?t exist proves to you that it does. I certainly can?t counter that kind of amazing thought process, and I?m guessing that you can?t or won?t admit to being wrong?so where does that leave us?

If the conspiracy theory is true, and let?s say that Pogue did invent a miracle carburetor, then what you?re telling me is that tens of thousands of oil company employees over the course of more than 70 years have all kept their mouths shut about the whole thing. Not one of these oil executives thought that it was such a great invention that perhaps they?d try to market it themselves and get rich. <span style="font-style: italic">Oops!</span> I forgot?they all knew that they?d be killed instantly if they did that. I forgot about the common sense thing that says that since the corporate body of big oil is evil, every individual involved must also be evil and willing to murder in order to make money for someone else. But still, don?t you think it?s even a little amazing that not one of those thousands of people over the past 70+ years has <span style="font-style: italic">ever</span> mentioned it? That?s some powerful conspiracy juju working there, <span style="font-weight: bold">AlK!</span>

You?re also totally ignoring 330 years of science. Yes, I know it?s currently fashionable to say that science is fallible and that there are other points of view on every scientific debate and that everyone has an alternate agenda. Well, here?s news. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are not open to debate. That?s why they?re called <span style="font-style: italic">laws</span>. It isn?t the First Hypothesis of Thermodynamics, it isn?t the First Theory of Thermodynamics, it?s the First <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">LAW</span></span> of Thermodynamics. There are few scientific principles that get to become laws because it is, as you rightly believe, difficult to prove things beyond all doubt. But those few things that <span style="font-style: italic">are</span> proven beyond any doubt are called <span style="font-style: italic">laws.</span> That means that they are <span style="font-style: italic">always</span> true everywhere in the known universe. Proof has been supplied as empirical data through experimentation and observation. Laws are irrefutable. Of course, there may come a day where alternate dimensions are discovered and all the currently known laws of physics and chemistry may not apply there, but I don?t think Farmer Pogue was working in an alternate dimension. He was working in Canada, which, last time I checked, was still part of the known universe.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I even looked up how the Pogue Carburetor worked. <span style="font-style: italic">Hell, I even found a drawing of the thing while I was looking around!</span> He basically put a gas-fired heating element in a pre-heating chamber to vaporize the fuel before it was sucked into the carburetor (this is why it tended to explode). In theory, heated and vaporized fuel sounds like it would be the key to miracle efficiency. Unfortunately, there?s that pesky (delta)U=Q-W thingamajig, you know, what with the science and facts and all.

The bottom line, without getting technical, is that a given amount of fuel and a given amount of atmosphere will produce an explosion of known size (this can be calculated), and that explosion will take the form of energy (which can be used to do work or be lost as heat). No matter what you do to the ingredients before combustion, the explosion will have a definite maximum and minimum limit of energy and heat. And gasoline and air, when combined and ignited, <span style="font-style: italic">even under perfect conditions, </span>will produce a finite amount of energy. Heating the mixture before it ignites will not make a bigger, hotter explosion, and that?s the only way Pogue?s carburetor would be able to improve efficiency. 200 MPG from a carburetor would be possible only if a smaller amount of gasoline would do the work of a larger amount of gasoline. Even common sense will tell you that is impossible. Or maybe not?that?s up to you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The bolt ons that I remember are ones that we all know will increase mileage. Take any 70' small block v-8, add HEI, headers, different more efficient carbs and you can squeeze quite a few MPG out of them, this is known and proven technology. It is not such a leap of faith that to apply the same concept to a lighter vehicle, add 15 years of advanced technology, that we could get 80+ MPG out of a car. With technology of today the Honda CRX gets 60+ MPG. With certain, tweaks and twonks could it get 100+, I say it's possible. </div></div>

You claim that adding headers and HEI and different carburetors to a muscle car can do wonders for fuel efficiency. You are correct. I certainly believe that it is possible to get another 5, maybe even <span style="font-style: italic">10 MPG</span> out of an engine using those tricks. But you?re arguing apples and oranges. It?s relatively easy to make an inefficient system more efficient (and nobody will argue that muscle cars were efficient). Getting 25% better fuel efficiency out of them is not a miracle. It?s not even difficult.

But modern cars already have all those tricks, plus a whole bunch more. They have fuel injection, which is vastly superior to carburetors (the atomization of the fuel charge from EFI achieves levels of vaporization that Pogue could only dream of). They already have high-intensity ignition systems (to make sure all the fuel is burned?and in modern cars, the number is somewhat above 97%). Most cars now use some type of header instead of a log-type manifold (to reduce pumping losses?you know the energy the engine uses to push out exhaust gas instead of moving the car). Modern engines use lighter components and have overhead cam designs to reduce pumping losses (friction, inertia, you know, energy that isn?t used to move the car, either). They use overdrive transmissions to reduce RPM at cruising speeds so that each revolution of the engine takes the car further down the road. And if you think catalytic converters are the problem, I took them off my 5.0L Mustang and it <span style="font-style: italic">went slower</span> at the drag strip. No, there aren?t any mysteries there.

Improving an inefficient machine like a ?60s muscle car by 25% is no big deal, and I?ll agree with you that simple tricks can definitely help. But you?re saying that improving on a modern vehicle, which is already pretty efficient, is similarly no big deal. What?s worse, you?re claiming that since you can improve the inefficient muscle car by 25%, you must be able to improve an already efficient car that gets 35 MPG by <span style="font-style: italic">250%!</span> That?s an order of magnitude of improvement. Again, I?m hoping that your common sense is acute enough to see the flaws in that argument. You?re right back to where you were with the Pogue Carburetor: somehow, a given amount of fuel and air is making a bigger explosion to create efficiency.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you say it is not possible because no one has done it, if so then like any self respecting ostrich you have to bury your head in the sand. </div></div>

I say it is not possible because the methods you describe make it impossible given our current understanding of chemistry, physics and the laws of the universe in which we exist. I don?t think that 200 MPG from <span style="font-style: italic">some</span> fuel source is impossible, and I don?t even think we?ve reached the outer limits of what we can do with existing technology. But the argument you are presenting about conspiracy theories and magic carburetors and bolt-on parts is extremely flawed and makes you look like a rube wearing a tinfoil hat waiting for the black helicopters to take him away. I don?t say that because it hasn?t happened yet, it won?t, but I am saying that there?s no conspiracy afoot to keep it from happening, and when it does happen, it won?t be because of a single miracle device, especially one as primitive as a carburetor invented by a farmer in the 1930s, or a combination of existing technologies. It?ll be something new, which I have a great deal of faith <span style="font-style: italic">will</span> happen.

Tell me, <span style="font-weight: bold">AlK,</span> did you also buy into that magnet that you put on your fuel line that somehow ?aligns the molecules for more efficient combustion?? Did you buy the pour-in teflon oil additives that somehow bond to engine parts by simply pouring them over the metal? Did you buy that ?tornado? device that swirls the air to make a more efficient combustion reaction? If so, you?re exactly the guy P.T. Barnum was talking about, and right now, that?s exactly my opinion of you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As to the veracity of the governments claims and/or the oil companies, would you or any other intelligent individual accept the word of either of those entities for anything. They have habitually and continually lied to and deceived us on any point you care to name. So why should we believe them. By the same token should we dis-believe them and believe the doomsayers like the EPA, or Sierra club, or any of the tree huggers organizations. Hell no. In any of the agendas of any of these organizations there may be a sliver of truth, and that is what we have to find. But the whole truth has to come from someone without a prearranged agenda and that leaves out any and all of the organizations I have named. </div></div>

When the laws of thermodynamics were discovered, none of those agencies, including big oil, existed. In fact, the United States didn?t exist! So I would call that an unbiased source (never mind the 300 years of proof since then). You?re back to your specious logic that since you can?t trust anything anyone says and since you believe everyone has an agenda, then the truth must have been suppressed and that you are correct because you don?t believe them. You can go on thinking that if you wish really hard, then all these things will come true. You certainly aren?t alone in that thinking these days.

Do me one favor?because this is my last post here, you won?t be getting any more responses from me?go to Google and look up <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">?Occam?s Razor?</span></span> and do a little reading. Educate yourself and you might find that there are times when you can?t even trust your own common sense.

And you say that <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">I</span></span> am the one with his head in the sand?

Out.

[Reatta Man]

I know for a complete and undeniable fact that there is no "miracle carburetor" or any other device that would give incredible gas mileage but was bought up by Ford, GM, Chrysler or any other manufacturer for one simple reason:

CAPITALISM.

If any manufacturer had such a device, and all his competitors were selling cars that got 25-40 MPG, but manufacturer X (GM perhaps?) could put a car on the market next week that got 60, 80 or 100 MPG, what do you think it would do to his market share?

* GM wouldn't have to worry about getting back to a 29% or 30% market share; they would have a 95% market share almost overnight.

* Chevy dealers could sell a $15,000 Chevy Cobalt for $40,000 if it got 100 MPG. And, they would have people waiting in line to buy one.

* Factories would be working triple shifts seven days a week to keep up with demand!

* Washington would give GM a huge tax credit to make all their cars with this "miracle" system. Why? Because every politician with a pulse would LOVE to be able to brag saying they personally "solved the oil crisis." Do you remember one politician that claimed he "invented" the Internet?

* Every manufacturer on planet Earth would pay billions of dollars for a license to make it or install it on their cars and trucks.

* UAW workers would be getting 20, 30 or 40% bonuses to work overtime and keep up with demand.

* Gas would be 75 cents a gallon almost overnight because DEMAND would be more than cut in half!

* Every member of OPEC would have to go out and get a REAL job other than gouging American motorists while calling us the Great Satan.

Now, after looking at this arguement from a common sense approach (yeah, I know some people still won't get it) does anyone REALLY believe in the 100 MPG carb that Detroit has been "hiding" all these years? Don't you also think this miracle could have saved GM BILLIONS of dollars in research in the last 30 years trying to meet CAFE requirements and emissions standards?

C'mon, people; follow the facts, not the conspiracies.

Joe

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> * Gas would be 75 cents a gallon almost overnight because DEMAND would be more than cut in half! </div></div>

Which is why three times now I've tried to steer this thread into the practical. The practical means change, <span style="font-style: italic">personal</span> change. It will take Mr. Kunstler's cataclysm to <span style="font-style: italic">make</span> some of us change.

If you read the early responses on this thread there are a substantial number among us who appreciate the problem and are trying to help, (<span style="font-style: italic">I in fact know of at least three Prius owners among the regulars on these forums.</span>) Unfortunately having that point of view shouted down is simply how this country is run these days. It's wrong.

Some minds will never be changed here in either direction. That's wrong, too. But allowing the dissemination of information to be railroaded is the greater wrong here.

This is not a subject that can be discussed without upsetting some people. It's also too important to allow that problem to outweigh what needs to be said and done. Do not allow concerns for other's feelings to subvert what we should be able to share here.

Our hobby and our Buicks hang in the balance. Just how long do you think it'll be before a "collector car" registration limits the amount of gasoline you're allowed to buy? It <span style="font-style: italic">will</span> happen, just read the linked articles.

[HurstGN]

I just HAVE to throw in a few notes here....ALL intended at humor more than anything else....

<ul style="list-style-type: disc">[*]Dave, CONGRATS on the sex change operation!! Now we know the real reason you went to Ohio.[*]There IS a mystery carb that WILL get 200 miles to the gallon...so why don't our cars get 200 MPG? Well, cause the automakers are using fuel injection, and not the *Magic* carb.[*]Here's yur sign.....I just love that one. Yes, it does seem to apply to many comments here, depending on what side of the fence you're on.

Continue on gents....

[Reatta Man]

Yeah, I kinda figured she would latch on to the drop in prices as justification for EXTREME conservation.

Look, my point was to show that gas prices would drop due to a drop in DEMAND, which supports the basic supply vs. demand rule of economics.

A drop in demand leading to a drop in price is NOT a rationale for conservation. Conservation proponents talk in terms of single-digit percentage drops in usage. This 'miracle carb' would conceivably drop demand by HALF.

Oh, by the way, if you went from 25 MPG to 100 MPG, that would be a four-fold increase in mileage. So, then, why would demand only be cut in half? BECAUSE GASOLINE USAGE DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR ALL CRUDE OIL USAGE!

There is still diesel, fuel oil, motor oils, lubricants, greases, waxes and many other uses for crude oil in addition to gasoline.

Hey, if you carry the conservation arguement far enough (to be riduculous) then you could say we could solve all air pollution (carbon dioxide=global warming) problems if enough people stopped BREATHING......

Hmmmmm............

[ranchero]

Dave Moon - I know that your postings were intended to steer the discussion to what you consider practical, energy saving ways we could conserve what you consider to be limited resources. My response, and probably that of others, was not intended to "shout you down". You are certainly welcome to try these schemes and to tell us about your discoveries. My responses have been intended to present an alternate point of view - mainly that conservation is silly and not necessary. Your perspective is certainly influenced by different input that I have been using. Of course, I am an investor and a capitalist and this certainly has me thinking that the right way to address our energy needs is to find and produce more - in this country. I also know that no company is making the proverbial "buggy whips" any longer - because capitalism provides us with alternative sources of power and the mechanical means to convert to our uses when market economic forces make it useful to do so. I believe in the power of the market. I know there were no cataclysmic uphevals when horses were eclipsed by steam railroads; when steam was eclipsed by diesel; when piston engine propliners were eclipsed by turbine jetliners; when fuel injectors replaced carbs; etc. Our capitalist culture has the ability to develop other sources of fuel and other methods of power if and when market forces make it economical to do so. Until then, don't worry. And I again suggest that conservation is a simple, self-gratifying badge of honor among those who do not trust the market to resolve what they see as a crisis. I trust the market - but not government, nor politicians nor conservationists. In the interim I am buying Exxon and shorting General Motors. With respect for your view and your telling it to us - Ranchero -

[Guest John Chapman]

Now, <span style="font-style: italic">that</span> was an entertaining post!

Cheers,

JMC