Energy

[ZURKE]

BP(British Petroleum) made 4.something Billion dollars profit in the 1st quarter of this year, tripling their profit from a year ago.

I understand supply and demand.
I have watched fuel prices rise over the past year in this country because of Venezuela, the war in the middle east, and the lack of refining capability in this country etc.

My point is I am paying more, they are making more.
Again, why am I paying more?
It does not balance out.

I have not seen the stats on other energy giants yet but I guaranty they are not far behind in profits.

We dont stand a chance.

[Budfred]

There is a very fine line between the law of supply and demand versus price gouging. The oil companies passed the line into price gouging long ago....

[bassman]

Ride your bike for a week, they will get the message.
Here (http://www.btwd.org/) is a local event happening this year. Feel free to do your part in New Hampshire ;)
I know I will.

[Budfred]

I already only fill up my gas tank about once every 5 weeks and my next car will probably be a hybrid... I walk to work sometimes and I have the most efficient furnace and A/C that I could find. I haven't noticed the oil companies being in the least upset by this.:D

It is true that they would notice if several million were to change habits to conserve energy, but in the USA people have been buying more SUVs and other gas guzzlers, not less...

On a related note: I got my electric bill this week and it included an offer to allow me to support wind energy by agreeing to pay more for my electricity each month. They claim that it costs more to produce wind energy than other forms. The thing is, I don't remember them ever asking people to pay more to build the nuclear and coal power plants that they are using already.... maybe because the nuclear power plants were opposed rather than anticipated positivenly. They are asking consumers to voluntarily subsidize their development of wind power because it is supported at the same time they are having us indirectly subsidize their demands for more cask storage of nuclear waste even though the last time they expanded this, they promised never again. I am sure they will also indirectly require us to subsidize decommisioning the nuclear plants, a process that will apparently cost billions and still leave a huge amount of dangerous waste....:mad:

[ZURKE]

Nuclear power plants have to have a decom fund that they pay into for as long as the plant is in operation.

But in the end we see it in our rates.

We have built a cogeneration plant here, the first in the state.
It cost the owners $300,000,000 to build but will be making 100% profit in less than 3 years.

Anyone have an extra $100,000 to invest?

[bassman]

Hey Budfred,
What if you put a windmill in your own yard and took a baseball bat to that glass jar on the side of your house??
For between $5000.00 and $10,000.00, you could have a completely grid-free system that will add a nearly equal value to your home. Do it in a refinance and you might not even notice the payment differance. But you will notice you no longer have a utility bill.

Do a search on Google for solar power and you will be inundated with information.

[Budfred]

I live in a little house on a tight little lot in a town that has zoning laws up the whazoo... Not a lot of options for customizing. Last time I looked into solar, it was not ready for primetime, but I'll check it out again. I think it has to be the source of the future for home energy, but the government has emphasized oil and nuclear so much more that the research has been slow since the boom at the end of the sixties and beginning of the seventies... Fuel cell technology may be a valid option too, but right now they are using petroleum based methane to obtain the hydrogen which makes it kind of absurd...

For the money that the energy companies have put aside to decommission. What I read is that in addition to the fact that we are paying that anyway, the reason the companies are avoiding closing down plants all over the country that were supposed to be closed years ago is that the funds they have are ridiculously feeble compared to what is needed. Think of how hard it is to store nuclear waste already and then figure how much material is contaminated with hard radiation in even one reactor... No recycling either, at least not for about 10,000 years...

[ZURKE]

I had to laugh when I read about fuel cells getting hydrogen from petroleum.

The enviromentalist get cleaner air and the energy powers get to continue sticking it to us.

I would like to find an artical on extacting hydrogen from water and the reasons why it would not be a better alternative.

I do realize the economical implications and how a great part of the world economy would be in a domino effect, but I am sure they make as hard as possible.

[gracious]

Yes it is sickening that the auto industry figured out 20 years ago how to make vehicles more energy efficient and yet nothing has been done and the government has not made it a priority. I have a Honda Civic which has great gas mileage and my friend has a big hog, Dodge Durango. I was following them on our way to a wedding which was about 200 miles away. I could not believe how many times we had to stop for gas and it wasn't my Honda...

Since we are removing our military out of Saudi Arabia and will be concentrating on Iraqi oil, it will be interesting to see what the gas prices will do, remember Clinton's buddy Mr. Marc Rich and how he got his oil relabled as "stripper" oil by a reseller to be exempt from the price caps? I wonder how much we had to pay for that! (Not to mention that while Iran was holding our citizens hostage, he was buying crude oil from them despite the trade embargo...) no I don't think our government really cares about us folks where a tank of gas could make or break us!

:(

[kayofcircles]

This is mean of me to say, but I believe that there are many people that will not change their habits until gas prices go through the roof. Other countries have been paying higher prices for years, but we in the States are a very big market, and the oil companies try (I think) to keep prices just below the "I have to change my habits because I can no longer afford gas" point. When you think about it, a lot of our economy is based on cars, gas, car parts, gas stations, etc and etc. A change is going to be rather traumatic..but being dependent on other countries to supply our habit is almost as bad as me being dependent on the "nicotine is not addictive" tobacco companies to supply my deplorable habit.

Alternatives like solar and wind are most interesting..and I think as time goes by, will become more affordable. We're in the process of learning about such, because a friend of ours is living in the mountains now..WAY off the electric grid..and she's using solar power. My husband is taking some time off today to replace her well pump..talk about choices! Solar pumps, 12 volt pumps, 24 volt pumps, 120 pumps, etc. Been a learning experience. But, all the above choices were more expensive than the usual 220 well pump.

And a small fuss. The vehicles my husband uses run off propane, because that's what he sells. It burns 10 times cleaner than gasoline, but recently the EPA has decided that vehicles burning propane "need" emission junk..like catalytic converters and such. Sigh..is it possible that there will ever come a time when the government just "leaves" a business alone to do it's thing and make a profit?? The company just spend thousands of dollars complying with new DOT regs, and new "anti-terrorist" regs.

[Budfred]

Kay,

You seem like such a reasonable person, I am surprised that you are still smoking cigarettes. :eek: I just hit about 31 years since I stopped and became smokefree...:)

As for your last point: a big part of the problem is that the government does leave lots of businesses alone to do their thing and damn the environment. They may make things harder for smaller businesses that don't have a loud voice (meaning $$$$) in Washington, but they let the car companies continue to make lethal gas guzzling vehicles when other choices are readily available and they let the oil companies do almost anything they want. If they hadn't had a brief period of political will to save the environment, the air quality today would probably be unbreathable even out where you live. When they first started pushing car companies to produce cleaner and more fuel efficient cars, you would have thought they were being asked to donate 90% of their profits to alternative transportation the way they complained. The government stood its ground back then and the air got a lot more breathable, but it is getting worse again with all the deregulation and SUV popularity.

Side note: did you know that drivers in SUVs, minivans and sports trucks are apparently 3 times more likely to die in an auto accident than drivers of normal sized vehicles. They are also more likely to kill the occupants of whatever vehicle they might hit. The irony: people buy them because they think they are safer. :(

[kayofcircles]

Saw a silly feature on news about the reason people are buying SUVs and such. Said they're buying them..post 9/ll..because they're "big." "Scary and intimidating" according to feature. I think people buy them because they're larger, and more comfortable. The government let car manufacturers get away with NOT making more fuel efficient vehicles (in my view) because they let the car companies say, "We can't make them any smaller, or lighter, without impacting on safety." Not stating that very well, but maybe you get my drift.

And you're right...I have been dismayed several times in the last few years about letting big businesses circumvent current regs on the environment. I should have been more specific and say "small" businesses. My husband manages three drivers, and a secretary who is still leery of the puter and manages to be absent every month during billing. But there's been a flood of new regs post 9/ll, and a small business has to pass along most of the cost to the customers to stay in business. The sad thing is that many of the companies in our area have gone belly up..and my husband's shop is now the lowest price in the area, and we can't take on any more customers. Drivers already overloaded. So there are many "abandoned" customers who cannot find a new supplier. Time for those alternatives, huh? But those are pretty expensive on "start up."

[Budfred]

They actually developed the technology to make small vehicles quite safe for human beings a long time ago, but the insurance companies don't like those solutions because it means the vehicle is totalled in even minor accidents. It involves designing the vehicle to absorb the impact rather than transferring it to the occupants, but that makes it really hard on the vehicle.

The thing about SUVs and other huge vehicles is that people buy them for safety, but they are not safer. One of those little Mini cars with 3 point restraints and a collision absorbing structure would be safer than the biggest SUV on the road. Unfortunately, people don't buy cars based on reason as much as emotion + auto companies make more money on big vehicles + advertising knows how to play on emotion = big gas guzzlers are selling at record rates.

[Steve]

I can see a few reasons for getting an SUV. I bought a small Toyota truck back in '87. Brand new. I got about 24 miles per gallon when it was new and that went down to 20-22 mpg quickly. Last year I bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee. It gets 18-20mpg. I hardly even noticed the difference. If gas cost $4-$5 per gallon it would break me. But at $1.60, I have no problem.

After driving that Toyota for 300,000 miles, over 15 years, I was REAL tired of small vehicles. I wanted something that could get me there and back in comfort. I'm not as young as I used to be. I also wanted 4WD.

If you ever tried to take three or four kids with full sports gear and food to the after school or weekend away game you'd love that Jeep. In the Toyota it was impossible.

[Budfred]

There are definitely good reasons for most of the different types of vehicles out there, but SUVs are being promoted as safe and they aren't. They are gas guzzlers pretty much across the board. They inspire false confidence with that 4 wheel drive so that in Minnesota when there is a big snow storm, they litter the ditches. Most significantly, most of the people driving them don't have a bunch of equipment and kids to drive around. I could use an SUV or big ol' truck occasionally, but that wouldn't justify me buying a Silverado and driving it to work so that I could use it to haul stuff twice a year. It sounds like you may have a legit reason to have a larger vehicle, like when my family had 5 kids and a station wagon, but most people that drive those behemoths don't.

BTW, I am old and creaky myself, so I drive a Saturn sedan. I get about 25 mpg when I am only doing short hops and it is quite comfy. I would rather drive a hybrid, but the only 2 available are out of my price range and hard to justify since I am only driving about 5000 miles a year.

[ZURKE]

Suv's are safer, simply, there is more between you and the impact.

The biggest problem is when some people get in them they think they are invulnerable, a fatal mistake.

Some people in 4wd vehicles think it means they won't slide, unless you have spiked tires there is nothing stopping you.

Please, take this as an opinion, I have a saturn and a Suburban silverado. I love the silverado, it uses more fuel but the comfort is unmistakable. I drive defensively which allows me reaction time.

I think ignorance in driving causes more accidents than faulty vehicles.


Kayeofcircles, If we use less fuel it will not bring down the price.
Producers will raise the price to keep up profits.
As Budfred put it and I must agree there is a fine line between supply and demand and greed.

[Budfred]

If SUVs are safer, why do they have 3 times the fatality rate of smaller vehicles. It is true that they are bigger and more destructive in an accident so that more damage is done to the smaller vehicle, so woe to the people in the smaller vehicle in an accident with one. However, because they roll over so much easier, because they give a false sense of security and because people who drive them seriously underestimate their speed because of sitting so high off of the road, they result in more fatalities per vehicle.

Also, while it is true that you can make a luxurious SUV that is very comfortable to drive in, it is also true that you can make a smaller vehicle luxurious and still burn less fuel.

And, it we switch to an alternate fuel that is more readily available, like water, they can make gas as expensive as they want....

[Fruss Tray Ted]

One of the suggested reasons for the higher rate of rollovers amongst sports utility vehicles is the nature of their design. Sports utility vehicles have a high center of gravity and a relatively narrow wheelbase, thus making them more likely to rollover in an accident. If you drive a sports utility vehicle it is wise to always buckle up and drive at posted speed limits. Taken from HERE (http://www.autoaccidentlawcenter.com/pages/stats.cfm) To me, some are downright SCARY looking! They look like two guys could walk up to one and push them over!

But I wouldn't trade my 4wd 1/2 ton for a car EVER!!! 20mpg is fine with me. A car just wouldn't get to where or do what I want it to. Try pulling a boat on a trailer out of the water on a 45° incline or going over boulders and logs without a low gear or high clearance. Or bringing the rototiller over to your sis's house so she can plant her garden, haul band equipment, firewood, lumber, etc...

Yeah,,, I wouldn't mind a car... ...if it'll fit in the back bed! :eek:

I've had 1 SUV. I survived without an accident and find them too in between. Either a car or a truck, make up your mind! LOL :D

But ZURKE is right. The gas prices are a lose-lose situation. The only way to beat that is to invent, produce and maintain your own.

[ZURKE]

Two words,

1. Slow
2. Down

[Steve]

The center of gravity thing is right in your face. You can feel it as soon as you start to drive one. ZURKE is correct. SLOW DOWN.

SUVs do what they do, well. So do Saturn sedans. Each has it's place. But don't expect a Saturn sedan to get you where a Jeep will get you.

[Budfred]

My Saturn has traction control which means I drive by ditches full of SUVs every Winter... It wouldn't work in the bush, but that is why Jeeps and such have a role. Unfortunately most SUVs and other 4 wheel vehicles never go off the pavement and just give the owners an overblown belief in their ability to handle rough weather...

[ZURKE]

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
Oh my stomach
LOL

[Fruss Tray Ted]

...have to do with propulsion or braking? Does it mean posi-trac or limited-slip differential? Or anti-lok brakes?

To me, traction has nothing to do with either. It's all in the tires. IE: Go power (posi, 4wd), stop power (anti skid), or skid (sideways/laterally) power. Even with anti lock brakes inertia can cause you to lose traction and slide/skid off the road.

Ok ok, SPEED KILLS! But so does inexperience. Which includes the chance to 'see for yourself'. I wish people could take an aggressive driving course like law enforcement, not to get too bold but to know better how to deal in a tricky situation and also how to keep a cool head when it does present itself. There'd be a LOT less fatalities if this were commonplace.

I was young and foolish in my earlier days (my kids don't believe I was ever young and you may say I'm still foolish :eek: ) and as a result have learned how to hydroplane, go around curves with the vehicle in a skid throughout, gone airborne with a non aeroplane, AAAhh,,, well this daredevil has had the grace from above to survive and learned to SLOW DOWN! This is not a controlled environment! I was as lucky as a lone rooster on a BIG farm... ;)

Yup, can drive in the snow too... glare ice, potholes, low shoulders, planked bridges over trout streams, hmm, now we're talkin',,, won't be long... :p

[Budfred]

Saturn's traction control includes antilock brakes, but it also involves some sort of differential power to the wheels... I am not real mechanically inclined, so I can't tell you the details, but I imagine they are explained on Saturns website. What I do know is that I would pretty much have to plow right into a snow drift to get stuck in the snow.

About a month ago we had a day of freezing rain with subsequent glare ice. I was at a friends house helping set up his new computer and he drove up to a restaurant for lunch. He almost didn't make it up the hill in front of his house. I left a while later and didn't even pause so that my friend commented on it the next time we talked. Can't explain it, but it works....

[bassman]

gracious,
I have a Honda Civic which has great gas mileage and my friend has a big hog, Dodge Durango. I was following them on our way to a wedding which was about 200 miles away. I could not believe how many times we had to stop for gas and it wasn't my Honda...
I think your friends better get that Durango in for a tune-up and quit wasting precious fuel.
I have a Chevy Tahoe that gets over 500 miles to a tank. Almost all vehicles are designed to get around 300 mile to a tank. For anyone who has really followed alternative development, you know that 300 miles to a full fuel load is the magic number. 50 to 60 miles a day is a typical commute. Thats around 300 miles per week. With rechargeables, a one-way trip, maintaining an average speed of 50 miles per hour is now an acheivable goal. But the cars that can do that would be deadly to drive if two of them had a fender bender.

Budfred
Side note: did you know that drivers in SUVs, minivans and sports trucks are apparently 3 times more likely to die in an auto accident than drivers of normal sized vehicles. They are also more likely to kill the occupants of whatever vehicle they might hit. The irony: people buy them because they think they are safer.
I have always liked your sensable approach to handling things and I respect you a great deal, but unless you are willing to provide some verifiable research to your statements about the hazards of SUV's, minivans, and sport trucks, I will only read it as your opinion, derived from print and broadcast media.
There may be 3 times as many deaths in accidents that involve SUV's, but I don't believe they are all the occupants of the SUV's.
The stats you used may also be tainted by not using per capita statistics. There may be considerably more SUV's, minivans, and sport trucks combined then Saturns, Civics, and Prius.
To futher this, folks who drive SUV's, minivans, and sport trucks may spend more time on the road then other vehicles.
Now, if my statistics are correct and you combine the two, that compounds the overall usage of these vehicles. With that said, lets get some real facts on this page, do a little math and find out what the real statistics are.
I have two vehicles, a Chevy Tahoe, and an Accura CL. I bought the Accura when my work took me on road trips. I found that I was using the Tahoe more due to equipment delivery, tool hauling, and crew. I originaly bought the Tahoe to trade up to a larger vehicle. Two boys, two dogs, bicycles, beach trips, mountain trips, Costco trips. These were nearly impossible and certainly uncomfortable with the compact car we had prior. Yes I put a lot of thought into the safety features and the comfort of this vehicle. There are drunk idiots, and other reckless drivers in small cars too. It is not the car that is dangerous, but the fool at the wheel.

Kay
The government let car manufacturers get away with NOT making more fuel efficient vehicles (in my view) because they let the car companies say, "We can't make them any smaller, or lighter, without impacting on safety."
The government did not let the car companies get away with anything. The first time you accept the the govenment restricts business growth, you and hubby need to quit your business and run for the hills. The govenrment promotes business growth. Do they promote car companies to make what sells?? Of course. Do they promote big oil?? Of course. Do they promote tobacco?? Of course. Do they promote Mom&Pop?? Of course they do. Do they promote special interest groups who stand around whining and pointing their fingers at others for their woes??? Well sometimes, but those groups tend to be the ones defending our rights and freedoms, not the ones trying to restrict where we go, how we get there, and what we do when we get there. The same groups who think we should all make the same amount of money, drive the same little cars, live it the same little buildings that house 100 families instead of taking up more space. The same groups who think I am going to accept all this garbage while they sit on their lazy, smelly cans while I'm out bustin my hump to provide a nice home, comfortable things, and an education/future for my children.

Frank is ranting again
:D:D Sorry folks, I get a little edgy when someone thinks they have a right to tell me I can't do something. They have a right to their opinion and so do I.

[kayofcircles]

bassman: I am so happy to see you coming around again that you can say ANYTHING you want, as far as I am concerned. :D I would, however, point out that the government, state and federal, is in the business of telling us what we can and cannot do all the dang time. And it seems to me that it's getting much worse recently.

Whatever..not going to rant. But I would like it a lot better if it didn't look like we are going to leave our kids, and our grandkids, a huge mess...a country deep into debt, pillaging parts of the environment to sustain bad habits, and looking "bad" in the eyes of the world.

But, in full agreement on the distinction between the vehicle and the driver. We have accidents in the canyon every year that close down the Interstate because of some idiot that won't slow down for ice. Duh.

[Lucias_Clay]

Zurke go here and read this article, but be prepared to spend some time and read the side articles also. Also bookmark this web site(if you haven't already) you can learn alot from it.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm

[Budfred]

bassman,

Look here:

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=736&scid=113

and here:

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=769&scid=114

and here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html

and here:

http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/suvreport/safety.asp

I heard the report on the evening news, so I can't share the exact quote. It was in reference to all large passenger vehicles. It is clear that you are far more likely to kill someone else in an accident if you are driving one of those vehicles, but it is far less clear that you will survive that accident yourself. More importantly, drivers of large passenger vehicles seem to be more prone to rollover fatalities that don't even involve another vehicle.

[bassman]

From here, http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=769&scid=114

"I wouldn't let my kid buy a two-star rollover vehicle if it was the last one on earth," Runge was quoted as saying.
Pretty obvious even to those who support his views that his reports will be biased. Can we rely on him to report clear facts fairly?

From Here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html

How many people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2000?
In the estimated 6,394,000 police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes during 2000, 41,821 people were killed -- an increase of 0.2 percent over 1999. 3,189,000 people were injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes and 4,286,000 crashes involved property damage alone. An average of 115 people died each day in motor vehicle crashes in 2000 -- one every 13 minutes.
Only because I am a stickler for the facts, is the .2% an overall increase or per reported crash? In other words, was the increase in reported accidents an equivalent percentage that justifies the .2 % increase in deaths. With that asked, .2% of the 2000 deaths is less than 85. What was the percentage of increased people on the road in the same time period?

From Here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html

The SUVs named most polluting by the EPA are: the Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet C1500 Avalanche, Chevrolet C1500 Suburban, Chevrolet C1500 Tahoe, Chevrolet K1500 Avalanche, Chevrolet K1500 Suburban, Chevrolet K1500 Tahoe, GMC C1500 Yukon, GMC K1500 Yukon, GMC K1500 Yukon Denali, Toyota Land Cruiser, and Toyota Sequoia
I bring this one up because I am not so arrogant that I cannot admit I am part of this. I have the underlined vehicle in the above quote. I may be a minority in the field of SUV owners, but the gas mileage compared to the functionality (which I use on a regular basis) is of little consequence.


From Here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html

There will be an estimated 70,000 SUV rollovers in 2002, in which it's estimated 2000 people will die.
That is less than 3%. What is the estimated percentage of people who will die in rollover crashes in small to mid size vehicles for the same time period?

From here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/before.html

Has Ford changed the design of the Explorer?
Yes. The 2002 four-door Explorer model is lower and its wheelbase has been widened by two inches. Former Ford CEO Jacques Nasser tells FRONTLINE that the changes were not made for safety reasons.
For 2003 Ford is also supposed to be angling the front horns of the frame rails downward and incorporating crumple points into the frame. This is in an effort to reduce the damage to another vehicle or it’s occupants. This is most definitely for safety reasons. It is my understanding that Chevy is doing the same thing.

I have taken this thread to this level for one reason and one reason only. It is not to defend my choice in vehicles, but to defend my choices period!!! This is much the same as saying anyone who’s skin is a very dark brown is a welfare case. Anyone who rides a skateboard is a lazy no good stoner. Anyone who is Jewish is a money grubbing thieving dirt bag.
Don’t judge me because of what some fool did. Judge the fool for being a fool. I will agree that SUVs pose a threat to smaller vehicles. That is common sense. But I will not be swayed to get rid of my Tahoe because of this fact, nor will I be swayed to not drive my sports car because of the SUVs on the road. I could be killed by a drunk on a motorcycle in either one of these vehicles just as easily.

Sorry for ranting folks:rolleyes:

[Budfred]

bassman,

I fail to see how commenting on the safety and fuel drawbacks of a vehicle can be equated with racism and other prejudice against people. I am not in any way saying you are a bad person for your vehicle choice and I believe in your right to choose your vehicle based on how you see your needs. I cannot and would not in anyway restrict your job opportunities, where you choose to live, who you socialize with or how you express any number of other freedoms because of your vehicle choice.

I also believe that the millions who choose to drive SUVs, minivans, large passenger trucks and similar vehicles put me in greater danger and use an excess of resources that are polluting and dwindling. I would rather see only the people who truly have an ongoing need for these vehicles drive them, but it remains an individual choice until the resources actually run out.

I will still resent SUVs (and similar vehicles) that end up crowding parking spaces, that come up behind me at high speed and tailgate me, that shine there headlights right in my back window at night when I am driving because there lights are set up at that level, and that drain resources so that eventually all of us will be out....

[bassman]

Point taken Budfred.;)
I get really wound up on this subject because I have had to defend my choices before. I have had my truck vandilized by these zealots who think they will change the world by intimidation.:mad:
I related it to race, creed, religion descrimination because these people think they have the right to judge my or force me to believe in their way based on something they don't like without knowing the whole story or having the true facts.

I apologize for taking this thread off topic:( and will now bow out quietly;)

[Eutychus]

I'm in agreement with Budfred on the issues. Mainly, SUVs annoy and scare me, depending on the situation. (The worse thing on the road, IMHO, is someone in an SUV using a cell phone with one hand and flicking cigarette ashes out the window with the other - behind me at night. How are they steering?)

Would I outlaw them if I could? No. At least half of my buddies, friends, and relatives drive them. My dear, sweet wife owns & drives one. (I drive an Impala, thank you very much.)

That people are damaging them or harrassing the owners is outrageous and without excuse.

I still don't like 'em. Less than pickup trucks. But, hey, there's lots of things that bug me. ;) If the whole world was like me, it would, at the very least, be very boring.

[Budfred]

I am appalled that someone would vandalize your vehicle for supposed idealistic reasons. It is wacky logic since it would simply increase the waste of resources to repair it and it is not something any ecologically minded person that I know would do.

Now if you parked next to me so close that I couldn't get into my car or took up two parking spaces, then I would think about vandalizing your vehicle even though I wouldn't actually do it. However, when that happens I don't care if you are driving a SUV or a Prius hybrid....

[kayofcircles]

I misunderstood, bassman. You're talking about the "PC Police", right? The ones that get a complete "public smoking" ban in Santa Fe kind of thing, yes? (Now, I am not trying to defend a nasty, dirty habit, but I am pretty sure that second hand smoke is not as damaging to the environment as car emissions.) The ones that want us all to be vegetarians, non-smokers, exercise freaks, and "slim"?? And the list goes on and on..and they justify their actions by saying it's "good" for us. And I almost forgot the Moral Majority people...what "majority"??

I know, off topic. :)

[HeadachesAbound]

I am six foot three. I drive an '89 Honda Civic. I average 250 miles to the tank (was 400 until I had a tune-up / standard maintenance done by the dealer).

I drive this vehicle because I don't have the financial freedom to choose another.

I have a wife, and 3 children under the age of 5.

If I were to be involved in an accident, the chance of all 5 of us surviving is slim due to the size of the car. The chance of survival for any 1 of us is increased due to my driving experience (ever tried to come to a complete stop when travelling at 75 MPH and you have less than 50 feet to do so?).

I have driven in blizzards (90 degrees, 100% humidity at 5am...-3 degrees, 100% humidity, white out conditions, 12 noon), severe thunderstorms (looks like midnight at 12 noon, hail the size of softballs, funnel clouds everywhere), and everything in between.

I drive the same road to and from work everyday. I take at least 3 trips every year where I travel at least 600 miles in both directions without stopping (12-14 hr drives).

I have experienced every level of stupidity that comes with an SUV.

This does not mean that everyone who drives an SUV is lacking a brain, just that most of the people with whom I have had an encounter fails to realize that the vehicle is not invincible and has a higher chance of being in an accident than my little honda does.

I am not an environmentalist, don't have the time. I am concerned that our nation is dependent on a resource that will eventually run out and that we have no real control over. I am concerned that our government thinks that it is justified to spend more money to "search" for said resources than it would cost to develop newer technologies.

I am a firm believer in the possibility of future technologies (too much star trek). If I had the resources and the time I would find some way to make an engine run off of oxygen or carbon di-oxide (what better way to clean up after all those SUVs).

If I had the money to waste, I would probably buy and drive something along the lines of an H2. Of course, I can't justify purchasing a vehicle that only gets 10 MPG.

I will not attack someone for driving an SUV, but I do see a problem with people who choose to ignore the potential for our civilization to advance beyond profit-mongering.

I am intrigued by the idea of running my house on solar. I like the idea of being able to charge the gas / electric company for my energy.

Eventually, most of us will begin to say that enough is enough. Until then, those of us driving little cars will continue to drive as fast as is possible in order to remain just beyond the front grill of that SUV behind us.

BTW, I think the "PC Police" should be brought up on charges of violating first ammendment rights of speech. I realize that some terms are just not appropriate and shouldn't be used, but who are you to tell me that I am photonically non-receptive (http://www.mssamantics.us/p-correct.htm), or selectively perceptive (http://www.mssamantics.us/p-correct.htm)? And yes, I do know people who would be offended by these so-called PC Terms. Many of them have been dead for nearly 200 years, but they would be offended none-the-less.

[ZURKE]

When petroleum starts to run out that is when the energy industy will start to look for alternative fuels.
There is no incentive to do it now or in the near future, they are making money hand over fist.
Supply and demand does not work with petroleum, well it does, but not for us, that is a simple fact. We could all be driving around in sardine cans and it would make no difference.

When you realize the amount of money involved, from the people that pump it from the ground, the people that ship it, the people that refine it, to the people that transport it to the stations that sell it, you have to realize the astronomical amount of cash that changes hands and the impact it has on any economy that uses it.

The oil people have alot of help from governments that want a stable economy.
So bring on the new fuel but dont think it will be cheaper.

[HeadachesAbound]

New Fuel : Carbon Dioxide or Oxygen.
Source : From the Air.

Objective : Create / Design / Test / Bring to Market Engine Alternative that is as cheap, if not cheaper, than standard combustion engine. Engine must run on the New Fuel and should be able to achieve equal or better gas mileage.

Secondary Objective : Create / Design / Test / Bring to Market Engine Add-on that allows existing combustion engine to run on New Fuel.

Anyone out there want to invest in my research? For just $75,000 / yr you can get in on the ground floor of this brand new energy technology.

Results are not guaranteed, but for $75,000 / yr I can quit my job and spend all my time trying to get an engine to run off of air.

[ZURKE]

They are out there headachesabound keep trying.:)