Higher Gas Prices vs. Alternative Sources of Energy

[Howard_Roark]

Calliso wrote:

I am not proposing that a law should be made or anything to stop people from driving a certain kind of car. I agree people can drive whatever they want. I am just pointing out that not everyone needs to drive some huge gas guzzling SUV. And I have little pity for those that do then whine about gas prices. You chose the vehicle you get to live with the consequences of it.

Whining means nothing. Policy does. I don’t care who whines about what in this world. I’m glad you are not in favor of governments coercing people in their basic choices, like what car to drive…because as I’m sure you’re aware, the US government is already doing that with a variety of hidden taxes (like CAFE standards) on certain vehicles. Expect the intrusions to get worse as time goes on.

• Read this piece…chge.med.harvard.edu/publicat…fullreport.pdf.*

Ah. I presume you read the article at the link? I’m going to use it from now an as my #1 example of the sort of tripe that is being used in a calculated way to provoke hysteria in the ignorant populace. That is quite possibly the most egregiously alarmist and downright silly thing I have read this year. Deforestation provokes new infectious diseases??? Do you have any skepticism within you, and or are you completely credulous? Didn’t the ugly graphic of the oil spilling out of the barrels on the title page tip you off that this article might be a wee bit partisan? They even devote an entire paragraph (1/3 of a page) to fanning paranoia about completely non-existant “nuclear” oil-extraction techniques. I promise the good doctors - nobody is setting off nuclear bombs to fracture oil shale. Nobody. What absolute rubbish! And what if they did? An epidemic of three-headed goats? It’s all rubbish.

Next time you google an article to buttress your position, google at least a credible one.

• Also there are different sources of oil…not all are the kind you can just drill a hole into the ground and get.*

Whales still have oil in their heads. Is that what you mean?

And yes I realize that the problem with many alternative fuels now is that they still rely on oil in some way shape or fashion. But does that mean we should just throw in the towel and say well oil is all we got? We HAVE to do something.

It’s being done, dear. The market ensures it. Just don’t go voting for some hlepful politician who promises to get involved. He’ll ruin it.

• And you know I am not saying we need to find something that lets us get rid of our oil dependency over night! We may always find that we need oil in some way or another. But which do you think is better basically having our society completely dependent on it to the point where if we ran out or stocks really got low the effects would be an utter disater. Or not being that dependent on it?*

Any scenario is better than what’s coming - the Federal government taking over more and more of the economy in the name of “doing something”. Well-intentioned but ignorant people are putting nutbag politicians into office in the name of “doing something”. The very few non-nutbag politicians realize that government can’t really “do anything” except get out of the way so that private enterprise can seek efficiencies via the profit motive. But the populace, swayed by dishonest journalism from committed lefties, is clamoring for someone to “do something” despite the abolute illogic of thinking government can do anything about it.

The only thing the government could ever do is ease the restriction IT placed on various aspects of the energy business. Know this - the same people who agitate against the use of petroleum are exactly the same people who agitated against the use of its only viable substitute, nuclear energy. They’re crazy. They agitate against the solution as strongly as against the problem - even from their own point of view. These are the people who are running the media and governmental debate over energy. The best they can do at the moment is take the people resonsible for distrbuting oil to consumers around the world (who do a darn good job of that, BTW) and bring them in for a sad little show-trial before congress. Haranguing oil executives does absolutely nothing for anyone, of course. It helps not one single person. No one. But, it appeases the fickle-headed mush-brains (to quote Diamond Joe Quimby) who want someone to “do something”.

The lesson is - government can do nothing to help. It can only harm. It can’t find oil, it can only tell you where you can’t look. It can’t produce tecnological innovations, the scientists all work for private companies who actually pay them well to work hard. It can’t lower prices, it can only raise them through taxes. It can’t even understand how the industries within its own national borders work, it can only make people appear before congress in a dog-and-pony show.

 

[zjl56]

Are you for drilling for oil in the Canada/Alaska as a short term solution to rising gasoline prices until we find alternative sources of energy?

Of course. There’s nothing particularly special about Alaska. It’s large area with small population that apparently has useable mineral resources and some bears. So? Texas, where I live, produces oil…we’re not dead and neitherare our large mammals. Deer eat all of our yard plants. Oil rigs haven’t magically killed them, I wish they did.

Would you vote for a Presidential Candidate who does not have a short term plan to stop alarming rising gasoline prices?

Yes, because there is basically NOTHING a politician can do about the market price of ANYTHING. (Where did you go to school???)

How high would the price of a gallon of gasoline have to be in order for you to support drilling for oil in Canada/Alaska?\

$0.01

Would you buy a hydrogen car in 5 years if they are mass produced?

What a silly question. How much do they cost? How many “hydrogen stations” exist? Do they blow up like bombs the way compressed natural gas vehicles tend to?

Are you considering downsizing from your current vehicle?

No. I need a truck for work. I am considering rasing our prices to pay for gas for the truck.

What do you think of those who do not want to drill in Canada/Alaska but offer no solution to alarming rising gasoline prices?

That they are weirdos.

Be aware that you are focusing in on a side issue. Alaska ain’t the only place on Earth with oil. Also, any “plan” the government makes is suspect. Private enterprise makes the best plans, and they do so best without unreasonable government restrictions.

What’s really interesting is that not many have considered that we can synthesize our own gasoline if we really need it. It would require a complete overhaul of our refineries, but it would allow us to keep our distribution model, and out cars. This would be an expensive solution, but it would it beat having to buy horrendously expensive cars. Plus, we only make hydrocarbons by pulling existing C02 from the air.

 

[surfinpure]

Drill here. Drill now. Be ecologically responsible about it. Should have done this 30 years ago, but it’s not too late.

 

[jc-servant]

Drill here. Drill now. Be ecologically responsible about it. Should have done this 30 years ago, but it’s not too late.

We are drilling in the US and we do have plenty of oil here. It has not been cost effective for the oil companies to have certain wells pumping in the past 10+ years because the price per barrel was too low. It does not mean that the locations were all tapped out.

I have seen numerous existing pumps turned back on along the roads in Texas and Oklahoma now that the price has gone so high. It reminds me of the 1980s with all of those funny looking machines bobbing along again. We have also had new drilling rigs set up here even before the price jumped.

We have no need at this point to even tap into our oil in Alaska to increase supply. It may be cheaper to drill and pump and get it to market from there (or not), but that is not the same argument as someone saying that we need to tap it because of an inadequate supply from elsewhere. People in the US are irritated now at having to pay more for gas, but this is not the 1970s oil embargo when the actual supply of gas was a problem. Back then the gas stations would literally run out of gas and people had to wait in long lines to fill up at whatever the price when it finally arrived.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Good post jc.

 

[Al_Masetti]

We are drilling in the US and we do have plenty of oil here. It has not been cost effective for the oil companies to have certain wells pumping in the past 10+ years because the price per barrel was too low. It does not mean that the locations were all tapped out.

I have seen numerous existing pumps turned back on along the roads in Texas and Oklahoma now that the price has gone so high. It reminds me of the 1980s with all of those funny looking machines bobbing along again. We have also had new drilling rigs set up here even before the price jumped.

We have no need at this point to even tap into our oil in Alaska to increase supply. It may be cheaper to drill and pump and get it to market from there (or not), but that is not the same argument as someone saying that we need to tap it because of an inadequate supply from elsewhere. People in the US are irritated now at having to pay more for gas, but this is not the 1970s oil embargo when the actual supply of gas was a problem. Back then the gas stations would literally run out of gas and people had to wait in long lines to fill up at whatever the price when it finally arrived.

Here’s a history of the bans on drilling:

glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/11289/

And this is an excerpt from today’s (12 June 08) Glenn Beck e-newsletter:

The list

So why IS gas so darn expensive? There are a lot of reasons, but somehow the biggest problem (as usual) points directly to Washington DC. Democrats yesterday in a subcommittee voted basically to kill going to the outer continental shelf to drill for oil because there are ‘other things we can do’. Glenn would like to introduce you to the people who are preventing us from drilling here at home, because, as Glenn says, these people should be famous. When the pitchforks and torches start coming out—we’d like to help clarify who was for or against us. Read the transcript. (Insiders listen here).

AGAINST
Chair: Norman D. Dicks (WA)
James P. Moran (VA)
Maurice D. Hinchey (NY)
John W. Olver (MA)
Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
Tom Udall (NM)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Ed Pastor (AZ)
Dave Obey (WI), Ex Officio

FOR
Minority
Ranking Member:
Todd Tiahrt (KS)
John E. Peterson ¶
Jo Ann Emerson (MO)
Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (VA)
Ken Calvert (CA)
Jerry Lewis (CA), Ex Officio

Here is the subcommittee website – they voted down party lines on this…

appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_ienv.shtml

 

[Calliso]

Calliso wrote:

I am not proposing that a law should be made or anything to stop people from driving a certain kind of car. I agree people can drive whatever they want. I am just pointing out that not everyone needs to drive some huge gas guzzling SUV. And I have little pity for those that do then whine about gas prices. You chose the vehicle you get to live with the consequences of it.

Whining means nothing. Policy does. I don’t care who whines about what in this world. I’m glad you are not in favor of governments coercing people in their basic choices, like what car to drive…because as I’m sure you’re aware, the US government is already doing that with a variety of hidden taxes (like CAFE standards) on certain vehicles. Expect the intrusions to get worse as time goes on.

• Read this piece…chge.med.harvard.edu/publicat…fullreport.pdf*.

Ah. I presume you read the article at the link? I’m going to use it from now an as my #1 example of the sort of tripe that is being used in a calculated way to provoke hysteria in the ignorant populace. That is quite possibly the most egregiously alarmist and downright silly thing I have read this year. Deforestation provokes new infectious diseases??? Do you have any skepticism within you, and or are you completely credulous? Didn’t the ugly graphic of the oil spilling out of the barrels on the title page tip you off that this article might be a wee bit partisan? They even devote an entire paragraph (1/3 of a page) to fanning paranoia about completely non-existant “nuclear” oil-extraction techniques. I promise the good doctors - nobody is setting off nuclear bombs to fracture oil shale. Nobody. What absolute rubbish! And what if they did? An epidemic of three-headed goats? It’s all rubbish.

Ok I admit I was in a huge hurry this morning and still felt like replying so forgive me for not finding the perfect source. However I went and reread the source and did more research as well.

I will address your first point on you seem skeptical on how deforestation can have anything to do with infectious diseases spreading. I admit I wasn;t sure of that one myself this morning but didn;t have time to look further. However I quick look after I got home from work brought up a link from the cdc. cvm.uiuc.edu/idc/documents/proceedings.pdf. There were of course other sources and if you want I can find another one if you do not like that one. The first part of that is the part that deals with deforestation.

As for the nuclear explosion part it was a small paragraph in a rather long paper. Hardly devoting a ton of time into something. And besides it said that it is suggested that nuclear explosions were used in the Soviet Union. It doesn;t seem to be claiming though that we can expect to see such techiques used in the United States anytime soon. As for why it could have possibly been a bad thing… well my guess is possible radioactive affects maybe.

Anyway though I think we will probably have to agree to disagree on this…particular subject. While I like to debate at times at times such at this thread I get too into too angry and that is not good for me. And like my husband says you can;t change people minds all the time. or something like that can;t remember exactly what he said now

 

[jc-servant]

Here’s a history of the bans on drilling:

glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/11289/

1. This is not an unbiased source of actual news but rather a pundit with his own agenda.
2. His column does not point to a blanket ban on all domestic drilling. Despite the urgent tone of his rant, this is a ban on undersea drilling leases in specific areas during a specific time. He fails to provide both sides of the debate over this ban, so it is impossible to determine the merits based on the minimal facts cited.

He is entitled to his point of view (which I sometimes agree with), but I don’t see this as an objective news source. In fact, he is not a journalist at all but rather a commentator. I would rather do some factual research on my own regarding undersea drilling in the listed areas. He would have been far more credible had he actually given citations to some factual sources to his readers in addition to his strongly held opinion that was spiced with a cheap swipe at the past President. It really cheapens the public discourse and lowers the credibility of the commentator to include those types of unrelated salacious things when discussing the current oil situation.

1. If a past President did approve such a ban by executive order (Mr. Beck is not clear about the method used in his sketchy facts), then it would seem that another President could use his pen to change the situation when he deemed it appropriate. An executive order is not a constitutional amendment requiring states to ratify it before change can happen.
2. I believe that even if drilling began today in these undersea areas, the price of oil is unlikely to drop substantially in the near future unless the dollar recovers (among other things). There is no magic pill that will cause gasoline prices to drop quickly.
3. The days of cheap oil may be gone forever, so we in the US can keep complaining and scheming or start making some lifestyle changes to adapt before it becomes a true crisis with shortages. If gas prices do miraculously drop again, then we would still be blessed with more reserves of oil for the future if we start adapting now.

Most Europeans are probably laughing at us right now because they have been paying substantially more for food, clothing, gas, vehicles and even driver’s licenses for decades while living in much smaller residences, taking public transportation more frequently and living close to jobs. We have enjoyed driving whatever we like, having 2 or more vehicles in even moderate income families, ignoring our mass trans and moving ever farther from our jobs in larger and larger homes. When I read all of the recent whining it just drives home to me how many Americans feel a sense of entitlement to a lifestyle that is unmatched in most other Western countries. Sure we had the “right” to enjoy that lifestyle, but we may now be asked to pay the piper.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Most Europeans are probably laughing at us right now because they have been paying substantially more for food, clothing, gas, vehicles and even driver’s licenses for decades while living in much smaller residences, taking public transportation more frequently and living close to jobs.

Fair enough, I have been and will continue to laugh at them for a variety of reasons, including these.

• We have enjoyed driving whatever we like, having 2 or more vehicles in even moderate income families, ignoring our mass trans and moving ever farther from our jobs in larger and larger homes.*

Yes…and the oil market has been global the whole time. All the more reason to laugh at them.

• When I read all of the recent whining it just drives home to me how many Americans feel a sense of entitlement to a lifestyle that is unmatched in most other Western countries. Sure we had the “right” to enjoy that lifestyle, but we may now be asked to pay the piper.*

I have every suspicion that, when oil prices stabilize again, Americans will somehow be enjoying a higher standard of living than anyone else. I also have every suspicion that Europeans will still be hopeless, Godless, annoying relativists being slowly conquered by fertile Muslims.

 

[Joe_5859]

I wouldn’t mind paying $4.00 a gallon if my car got more than 30 miles per gallon! Not that we can’t look for alternative energy sources, but we could also be advancing the technology so our cars get batter gas mileage.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Most Europeans are probably laughing at us right now because they have been paying substantially more for food, clothing, gas, vehicles and even driver’s licenses for decades while living in much smaller residences, taking public transportation more frequently and living close to jobs.

Fair enough, I have been and will continue to laugh at them for a variety of reasons, including these.

• We have enjoyed driving whatever we like, having 2 or more vehicles in even moderate income families, ignoring our mass trans and moving ever farther from our jobs in larger and larger homes.*

Yes…and the oil market has been global the whole time. All the more reason to laugh at them.

• When I read all of the recent whining it just drives home to me how many Americans feel a sense of entitlement to a lifestyle that is unmatched in most other Western countries. Sure we had the “right” to enjoy that lifestyle, but we may now be asked to pay the piper.*

I have every suspicion that, when oil prices stabilize again, Americans will somehow be enjoying a higher standard of living than anyone else. I also have every suspicion that Europeans will still be hopeless, Godless, annoying relativists being slowly conquered by fertile Muslims.

We have friends from Germany and from Belgium.

They are very critical of the United States for all the reasons stated previously.

Interestingly, despite all the shortcomings of the United States, THEY MOVED HERE!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Nothing wrong with the supply, Its the bidding that affects us all…
Eastern countrys are out bidding for more oil and thats what putting the prices up…The G8 summit meeting is trying to get it more stable…
Its all about £$ just greed…

I’m not sure I understand you. If many buyers are bidding, and there isn’t enough to go around, the price goes up. So it is a supply problem – unless somehow those other nations are to be denied the right to buy on the open market.

 

[Howard_Roark]

I wouldn’t mind paying $4.00 a gallon if my car got more than 30 miles per gallon! Not that we can’t look for alternative energy sources, but we could also be advancing the technology so our cars get batter gas mileage.

I’m sorry, perhaps I seem over-sensitive on these topics. I made my living in the automotive industry for a time, and these kinds fo posts bug me. A lot.

What do you “we could be”…what do you think all of the people employed by the auto companies do all day? Play solitaire? They are up against a severe technology barrier. Take a look at the experimental cars that get 100 mpg in testing (pics are all over these days). What don’t you see? Room for people and cargo…bumpers…headroom…crash-resistant structures…braking and cornering ability for accident avoidance…

In short, it takes a certain number of pounds of car to contain all of the technology that society considers reasonable for a car to have…and it takes a certain amount of heat evergy to accelerate that car and a certain amount to overcome wind and rolling resistance.

Because the Federal government has once against mandated an increase in corporate-average fuel economy numbers, we are going to see a chnage in the auto industry - cars and going to get smaller, and lighter and consequently more dangerous.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

we are going to see a chnage in the auto industry - cars and going to get smaller, and lighter and consequently more dangerous.

it’s all about the weight–i don’t think we can do much to make the engine more efficient. it’s one thing if everyone drives slow light weight, high mpg cars, but some people will be barrelling down the road in 1.5 ton pickups.

what good is it to cut down on carbon emissions in a car pooling prius when you are splattered by a speeding SUV?

not worth it to me.

 

[Calliso]

it’s all about the weight–i don’t think we can do much to make the engine more efficient. it’s one thing if everyone drives slow light weight, high mpg cars, but some people will be barrelling down the road in 1.5 ton pickups.

what good is it to cut down on carbon emissions in a car pooling prius when you are splattered by a speeding SUV?

not worth it to me.

Well I am willing to bet most people get a prius to save on gas…that is the main reason we got one!
Really though I donlt think being splattered by some speeding SUV ever really crossed our minds though.

 

[zjl56]

I wouldn’t mind paying $4.00 a gallon if my car got more than 30 miles per gallon! Not that we can’t look for alternative energy sources, but we could also be advancing the technology so our cars get batter gas mileage.

I’m sorry, perhaps I seem over-sensitive on these topics. I made my living in the automotive industry for a time, and these kinds fo posts bug me. A lot.

What do you “we could be”…what do you think all of the people employed by the auto companies do all day? Play solitaire? They are up against a severe technology barrier. Take a look at the experimental cars that get 100 mpg in testing (pics are all over these days). What don’t you see? Room for people and cargo…bumpers…headroom…crash-resistant structures…braking and cornering ability for accident avoidance…

In short, it takes a certain number of pounds of car to contain all of the technology that society considers reasonable for a car to have…and it takes a certain amount of heat evergy to accelerate that car and a certain amount to overcome wind and rolling resistance.

Because the Federal government has once against mandated an increase in corporate-average fuel economy numbers, we are going to see a chnage in the auto industry - cars and going to get smaller, and lighter and consequently more dangerous.

The automotive industry may has developed many wonderful cars, but it has been absolutely pathetic in getting these cars out to the public. The fact is that the main auto companies have been so short sighted that they haven’t been willing to allow short term losses in favor of longer term profits.
Every few years these guys, Ford, GM,…, have come out with a pretty good high mileage car. But, they didn’t allow time for the marketing plus supply to kick in for a viable market. Toyota created a similar car to these other companies, but it allowed for some initial losses in their sales. Because they stuck it through with their experimental Prius, they are now one of the only auto companies that is turning a profit.
So it’s not that the publics expectations are too high, it’s the auto companies fault. They have been riding the wave of cheap gas and short term profits rather than predicting the inevitably of higher gas prices, and they are certainly paying for it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I wouldn’t mind paying $4.00 a gallon if my car got more than 30 miles per gallon! Not that we can’t look for alternative energy sources, but we could also be advancing the technology so our cars get batter gas mileage.

I’m sorry, perhaps I seem over-sensitive on these topics. I made my living in the automotive industry for a time, and these kinds fo posts bug me. A lot.

What do you “we could be”…what do you think all of the people employed by the auto companies do all day? Play solitaire? They are up against a severe technology barrier. Take a look at the experimental cars that get 100 mpg in testing (pics are all over these days). What don’t you see? Room for people and cargo…bumpers…headroom…crash-resistant structures…braking and cornering ability for accident avoidance…

In short, it takes a certain number of pounds of car to contain all of the technology that society considers reasonable for a car to have…and it takes a certain amount of heat evergy to accelerate that car and a certain amount to overcome wind and rolling resistance.

Because the Federal government has once against mandated an increase in corporate-average fuel economy numbers, we are going to see a chnage in the auto industry - cars and going to get smaller, and lighter and consequently more dangerous.

Some years ago, I asked an expert why Volkswagen got rid of the original Beetle and original Karmann Ghia. The answer was that they could no longer fit all the government mandated anti-pollution stuff under the hood.

The government demands super bumpers, air bags, super clean engines, and all sorts of additional doo dads, but the cost of all that stuff and the weight and the power drag of running all that stuff means the car must be far more complex and heavier.

Used to be that any car owner could perform their own maintenance. Not any more.

On the other hand, cars have become mechanically and electrically more reliable. Frequent tuneups are no longer necessary. In the not too distant future, cars will have sealed engines and will not require any maintenance for 100,000 miles.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Yes we do need more refineries. Seems to me we used to have a lot of them; but they have consolidated production into a smaller number of refineries, which makes us more vulnerable to disruption in the event of accidents, fires, explosions … which happen with some frequency … God help us, acts of terrorism.

Or even just a bad accident. Look what is happening to Western Australia since there was a massive accident at the Apache natural gas plant on Varanus Island in the 3rd of June. This plant provided 1/3 of the gas for the state. Business and Industry have both been very hard hit. Rolling brownouts, blackouts, factory shutdowns, mine shutdowns, hundreds laid off within a week, thousands more on the line, shopping centres and offices turning off their most of their lights and heating, households told to shower less to reduce hot water usage and reduce usage of space heaters, both gas and electric and it’s going to take about 2 months to fix.
news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23820317-948,00.html

One plant - one accident and we’re all scuppered. Too bad we can’t fire our incompetant Energy Minister for allowing all our eggs to be in one basket.

I promise the good doctors - nobody is setting off nuclear bombs to fracture oil shale. Nobody. What absolute rubbish! And what if they did? An epidemic of three-headed goats? It’s all rubbish.

While more often than not I find myself agreeing with you, I just felt I needed to point this out. I was in Colorado in 1973, and it was big news. I thought it was rubbish at the time but they went ahead and did it anyway. Although they succeeded in breaking into the layer which held the oil shale, it was no longer usable because it was radioactive.

The Piceance has had its brushes with fame, but energy production never took off. The US government exploded nuclear bombs 1 mile underground there in 1969 and 1973 in an attempt to shake loose locked-up natural gas. However, the ill-fated efforts at Rulison and Rio Blanco **yielded nothing but a small quantity of radioactive gas. **
The plan was part of the federal government’s “Project Ploughshare,” designed to use up much of its aging nuclear arsenal to demonstrate peaceful uses for atomic explosions. The first explosion at Rulison was three times more powerful than the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima. The second at Rio Blanco was seven times stronger.
Opponents were led by **** Lamm, a young environmental attorney who later became Colorado’s governor. They feared the explosions would crack the Earth’s surface, lethally contaminate the nearby Colorado River and send deadly radioactive clouds over the Front Range.
Proponents imagined a powerful new technique for stimulating natural gas production. In the end, neither was right. The explosions occurred without the Earth cracking, but public opposition and poor results brought an end to the experiments.
savageresources.com/toppage1.htm

Closer to home, there have been four nuclear devices exploded in Colorado, each of them several times larger than the bomb that leveled Hiroshima. The first one, Project Rulison, was a 43-kiloton device detonated in the spring of 1969 about eight miles from the town of Parachute and about a mile and a half below the surface. It was a combined effort of Operation Plowshare, which was researching peacetime uses of the bomb, and Operation Mandrel, researching wartime uses of the bomb. They determined that the wartime use was to blow the hell out of everything, while the peacetime use was to blow the hell out of oil shale — extracting natural gas and at the same time creating a huge underground storage tank to keep it in.

It worked, too, but the whole doggone experiment was ruined when Homer Simpson walked in and announced, “Duh-Oh! What if the natural gas gets radioactive?”
The sad thing is I’m not kidding.
skyhidailynews.com/article/20080509/COLUMNISTS/273212739

Would you buy a hydrogen car in 5 years if they are mass produced?
No, like LPG, I don’t think they are very safe. Also, there is the issue of how much energy is needed to produce the hydrogen.

Are you considering downsizing from your current vehicle?
Did that when the kids left home. Petrol is now around AUD$1.60 per litre or around $6.00 per US gallon. Like Britain some 80% of the price is tax

 

[Howard_Roark]

I’ll be glad to append my reply to read “Since 1973”. I’m still perfectly happy with that.

 

[Holly3278]

We need to up our search for viable alternative sources of energy. Why? Because gas prices are just going to continue to rise. And besides that, who knows, we may find a better use for oil. We may be able to develop a cure for cancer using oil or something. I know that sounds strange but anything is possible, right?