Heard today that analyst expect oil at $200 barrel by the end of the year. The trickle down of that increase into all things oil (and supported by oil) will increase right along with it. That will put a real crimp in the car hobby.

I'm planning to run my Porsche 356G on switch grass..... :yes:

I also heard today that Toyota is now officially the largest auto manufacture.

Jim

Not to blame a party but Since Pelosi promised to reduce the cost of fuel in and around the 06' election, oil prices have risen nearly 70%.

While there are many mitigating factors for the cost of oiland fuel, american politics are screwing us over royaly, from oil prices and a lack of refineries to being abstinent on nuclear power.

On the other hand, a recent article in The Economist points out that crude oil prices, when corrected for various inflationary factors, still has a long way to go to reach the previous high set in 1980. According to a study conducted by Deutsche Bank, crude prices will need to be somewhere between $134 to $150 per barrel to beat the 1980 High.

The biggest culprit in the US lack of reasonable growth in energy production, those who have so vigorously pushed the scare of "uncontrolled man-made global warming" have probably done the most harm. With recent policy discussions, as well as actual policy, centering on our reduction of fossil fuel dependence, you can hardly blame industry for their lack of enthusiasm for increased investment in production capability.

Radical environmental groups continue to block nearly every form of energy production, including so-called "green" energy such as wind and solar. Add to this their previous failures at policy influence regarding the previous CAFE standards that led to the SUV craze, as well as the standards for low-sulfur diesel and its impact on the US diesel market and it is not hard to see why we should marginalize these voices rather than cling to their rhetoric. Even today, much of the rise in food prices can be attributed to the push for bio-fuels and the conversion of too-large a percentage of world food production sources to bio-fuel crops.

In the end of course, we need to take a balanced approach. However to do so will require complex policies that encourage existing industries to diversify their energy production processes. Oil is and will continue to be a vital raw material in the US economy as it is not only a nearly irreplaceable energy source, but also the source of many other products from plastics and solvents to medicines, the price of which is dependent upon the oil futures market.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill

protouring442, you bring up a lot of good valid points. You got any references? Not calling you on it but I'd like to see some of the info you've read or heard.

Hi T Bell,

I've read and heard the same info that Bill referenced. The Economist reports on a lot of this kinda info - so check there for same. The national media and the sunday political shows have also recently reported the same stuff.

I live here in the mid-west and both my uncles are corns/bean farmers. Lots of the corn is being put into ethanol production - and pulled away from other uses. Indiana (where I live) alone has something like 42 new ethanol production facilities using almost everything we can produce here in Indiana and the surounding states. Both my uncles have had record profits for their grain these past 2 years. (neither one of them believes that ethanol is the solution to our problems - and is just making the food issue a bigger problem)

And there is also the effect that China currently has on oil prices. They project they will use 30% more oil just this year alone as they increase their manufacturing facilities and industry. And since OPEC has stated they will not increase the supply - that will greatly effect the availabilty and push prices to the 200/barrel mark as projected this weekend.

Bring on Hydrogen and those fuel cells !!!!! (IMO - the rest of these solutions are just short term steps)

Jim

Oh jeez man, don't get me started on that one! I am right there with you... I still see bumper stickers around here that say split wood not atoms - dumbsh!ts. It is amazing just how clueless this society is in general about nuclear power being essentially a big nuclear warhead ready to go off :rolleyes: or somehow being worse for the environment than coal.

Search out how much of this country's energy is derived from fricken coal for crying out loud (especially bad here in CO and I was blown away after I moved here to realize how much of it is coal energy). Roughly a fourth of the nations energy and some sources claim almost 90% of the Rocky Mountain region's energy is from burning coal :wow:

Weren't we over that about 100 years ago!

And along with Bill's notation about everything relying on petroleum, a quote I ran across double checking the stat on the CO useage of coal
edit - forgot about the corn ethanol thing - another farce I shouldn't get started on. What a joke that has been played on this society. Even the price of beer is going up because farmers that would grow hops are changing over to corn to make a fuel that is worse that just burning gasoline when it is said and done from production to higher volume required to make the same power. Burning corn makes as much sense to me as burning coal. The only potential for E85 is if cars start coming out at 14:1 compression (or whatever the highest CR that mixed alcohol fuel is good for) as the efficiency of an engine can be tied 100% to CR. Figure out a way to essentially inject it like a diesel engine so it has no butterfly and efficiency will increase even more (as a gas engine is max efficiency at WOT because the throttle restriction is removed - diesels have no restriction). Then maybe, somehow it would be better to burn corn.

Ultra low sulfur diesel is about the only decent step in the right direction this country has made in decades IMO. If we worked on highly efficient turbo diesel hybrids with onboard regenerative systems I would think we were onto something for a real, near-term fix for pollution, fuel dependency, etc. My dad had a 1984 Ford Escort diesel that got 55mpg around town and 57 highway. No turbo so somewhat gutless and being a small 4-cyl in 1984 somewhat new technology in a small package (alum head IIRC) trying to get the weight down for small car useage, but 55mpg. With high pressure injection, huge advancements in electronic engine mgmt, way more efficient engine and turbo designs, etc etc. we should be there no problem in a Ford Focus. Add a hybrid concept and not get 75mpg someone stepped on their ding ding.

But not in this country. That car lasted one year (only made in 1984) and was clearly just too efficient for the US. Look at how many "World" cars are diesel v. gas. Finally we are starting to get some VWs and so forth with TDIs over here with the increasing fuel costs. Too bad VWs are such POS or I would consider it for my fiancee's next car.