As I pointed out in a thread in the Gen Forum, I have been doing the consolidation of errands, changing my driving style, and keeping my vehicles in top shape since the prices went over $2/gal. I spend less for fuel and maintenance on my vehicles now, than I did 5 years ago. Now, if I could diet to reduce hauling weight, I'd be rich!

....:lol:

I guess it all depends on how you define progress. The Native Americans were referred to as barbarians by their European conquerors and one of the telling facts of their "barbarism" was that they were not familiar with the sword.

Improved health, increased life expectancy, better security, more peace, more leisure time, and more time to devote to the arts, scientific research, etc. Those are among the things that I count as progress. Farmers using horses in the fields and for basic transportation is not my idea of progress.

 

Colonizing space, which is the only thing that will ensure the very long term survival of our species will require us to harness many magnitudes of energy than current technology allows. In the shorter term, our economy is fueled by,,,fuel. Less or more expensive fuel means slower economic growth, recession, or depression.

 

The increasing demand for energy will either lead to the development of cheaper, more abundant energy sources, or human civilization will eventually peak and then begin to decline until our successors once again rely on domesticated animals to enhance the approximately one-third horsepower each of us can muster on our own.

Some vehicles run at optimum above 65 or 70mph, some below.

 

 

 

The only vehicles I can think of that might get better fuel economy above 70 mph than below 70 mph would be some types of aircraft--and that's just because most planes are not designed to cruise at speeds that slow. I can't think of any reason why a road vehicle would consume less fuel going 70 mph than 65 mph. Aerodynamic drag is the overwhelming factor at highway speeds and it increases with the square of velocity.

And in the best case scenario, production from ANWR would peak at 1.45 million barrels per day. Again, I ask, why can we not conserve and replace declining production?

 

That high oil resource scenario carries with it a 5% probability (that's a 1 in 20 likelihood). The equally-probable low oil resource case points to peak production of only 510,000 barrels per day. From the EIA report: "There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region."

 

 

Over the long term, our civilization will decline if we do not learn how to tap more energy per capita. Historically, civilization has advanced by harnessing ever more energy, not through conservation.

 

That's fine. But there's nothing that says that we have to tap more petroleum to do that. I'm sure there were people who called for more whaling when whale oil was a major energy source in the 19th century--however like petroleum, whale oil was a finite resource with a limited capacity for man's use. It's much better if we use renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar rather than rely on non-renewables that will run out. Or nuclear, which is a very clean, nearly limitless form of energy that does not depend on non-domestic sources of supply. It is stupidity to remain married to a form of energy that enriches the people and governments who fund terrorism against us.

That high oil resource scenario carries with it a 5% probability (that's a 1 in 20 likelihood). The equally-probable low oil resource case points to peak production of only 510,000 barrels per day. From the EIA report: "There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region."

 

 

 

 

That's fine. But there's nothing that says that we have to tap more petroleum to do that. I'm sure there were people who called for more whaling when whale oil was a major energy source in the 19th century--however like petroleum, whale oil was a finite resource with a limited capacity for man's use. It's much better if we use renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar rather than rely on non-renewables that will run out. Or nuclear, which is a very clean, nearly limitless form of energy that does not depend on non-domestic sources of supply. It is stupidity to remain married to a form of energy that enriches the people and governments who fund terrorism against us.

 

 

And it is also stupidity to remain permanently married to a form of energy that is non-renewable. A lot of folks, for whatever reason, don't want to hear it; but depleting fossil fuels at an ever-increasing rate is not the answer.

 

I'm reminded of a short story by andy offutt (from Haldeman in Rowan County; father of author Chris Offutt). It's been MANY years since I've read the story, so some of this may be a little off, but...

 

The premise was that souls were a non-renewable resource. Once the limit of live humans on Earth had been reached, the oldest people started dying for no apparent reason. As the birth rate continued to climb, the age at which people died kept getting lower. In response to this global crisis, world governments agreed to limit the number of children that each family could have.

 

However, in an effort to dominate the world's supply of human beings, China kept having more and more babies, in defiance of the edicts that had been promulgated.

PS:

 

I believe that in the story, the United States and China wiped out China with nukes.

That high oil resource scenario carries with it a 5% probability (that's a 1 in 20 likelihood). The equally-probable low oil resource case points to peak production of only 510,000 barrels per day. From the EIA report: "There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region."

I wonder why not?

 

That's fine. But there's nothing that says that we have to tap more petroleum to do that. I'm sure there were people who called for more whaling when whale oil was a major energy source in the 19th century--however like petroleum, whale oil was a finite resource with a limited capacity for man's use. It's much better if we use renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar rather than rely on non-renewables that will run out. Or nuclear, which is a very clean, nearly limitless form of energy that does not depend on non-domestic sources of supply. It is stupidity to remain married to a form of energy that enriches the people and governments who fund terrorism against us.

Wind and solar power have been around for decades (centuries in the case of wind power) and neither technology can compete with oil on a large scale. PepRock and the French have convinced me that we should be building new nuclear plants. The question is will the far left environmentalists allow the disposal of nuclear waste?

 

I agree that it is stupid to indirectly fund terrorism through oil purchases, by restricting supply by blocking access to new oil resereves, we are increasing the money available to terrorists. It is unlikely that Americans can conserve enough energy to offset the growing demand by countries such as India and China. Allowing prices to sharply increase while we place our own oil reserves off limits without having any viable alternative is what is stupid to me.

Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France and Lithuania get around three quarters of their power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine get one third or more. Japan, Germany and Finland get more than a quarter of their power from nuclear energy, while the USA gets almost one fifth.

 

Hmm maybe we could store it under ground like they all do....our current energy policy makes us look like the dumbest smart country, on the face of the planet.

I wonder why not?

 

Wind and solar power have been around for decades (centuries in the case of wind power) and neither technology can compete with oil on a large scale. PepRock and the French have convinced me that we should be building new nuclear plants. The question is will the far left environmentalists allow the disposal of nuclear waste?

 

I agree that it is stupid to indirectly fund terrorism through oil purchases, by restricting supply by blocking access to new oil resereves, we are increasing the money available to terrorists. It is unlikely that Americans can conserve enough energy to offset the growing demand by countries such as India and China. Allowing prices to sharply increase while we place our own oil reserves off limits without having any viable alternative is what is stupid to me.

 

Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France and Lithuania get around three quarters of their power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine get one third or more. Japan, Germany and Finland get more than a quarter of their power from nuclear energy, while the USA gets almost one fifth.

 

Hmm maybe we could store it under ground like they all do....our current energy policy makes us look like the dumbest smart country, on the face of the planet.

 

 

Just like I've been saying, use pebble bed reactors to provide energy for this country and take fossil fuel power plants offline. Use the surplus coal to reformulate into oil and gasoline in the interim before we can ween ourselves off of it.

Just like I've been saying, use pebble bed reactors to provide energy for this country and take fossil fuel power plants offline. Use the surplus coal to reformulate into oil and gasoline in the interim before we can ween ourselves off of it.

 

This is what I think we should be considering (along with increased emphasis on renewable energy such as wind). We could end our foreign oil dependency once and for all. The only question is cost, but if you put it in terms of how much we will spend over the next two decades to secure oil production and transport from the Middle East, the cost probably becomes feasible.

We've heard this for the past several years in one form or another. There comes a point sometime when there is no less.

 

Liberals want us all to live in the city where they can control. They want to end "ignorant and fearful" rural life. Grease your bicycles and get out your washboards.

I'm wondering if one of our P&R regulars is a contributor to The Onion...

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48223

I watched a show, on this "fad", as I'll call it.

 

There is enough to focus on while driving, without all the other inherent problems of "coasting" and "engine stopping", they are proposing.

 

Actually it makes you pay attn even more, which is a good thing.

 

Well, I've had some success doing some of these practices I must say, which was hard for me to do. I'm an avid speeder, nearly 50 tickets, used to have a goal of hitting 100 mph each day, since you could in Europe and we were facist. Haha, that last part is a little humor. But the rest is true, even the 100 mph goal. Speed is the only drug I have ever tried.

 

My best MPG vehicle I own right now should get 15/18 based on sticker. However, it's a truck with a topper sticking up above the roofline, and it loaded down usually. For the first 7 years I owned it, I have never gotten over 16.5 mpg, even on long trips to Cincy and Dayton. To save money, I changed my habits.

 

I started by slowing down, MPG went up. I installed a K&N air filter, MPG went up. I started coasting, MPG went up quite a bit that time. I inflated tires to 40 psi, the max. I'm not stupid, as pressures increases when you drive anyway, I'm not going to kill myself and go over the max. MPG made the biggest jump yet.

 

It doesn't sound like much, but I have gone as high at 21.47, nearly a 5 mpg increase, and higher than the factory sticker say I can get. Coupled with not driving (my favorite thing to do), combining trips, etc, I have cut my gas using down by half compared to just 2 months ago. That is on top of me parking my boat (2 mpg) and Jeep (8 mpg) a few years ago, which was at least 3500 gallons of gas per year. I refuse to sell them since that is giving up. One day, I hope to go back to some semblence of my previous lifestyle.