You, Too, Can Save 20% On Gas Costs!

[CoyoteRed]

...Ford Escape...

We rented one of these once. Wasn't thrilled at first, but it grew on me. With my lead foot we got 15 MPH aroudn town, but got 20 MPH cruising 80 on the interstate. It has a smallish, high performance engine so it can deliver the horsepower but at a fuel hit.

 

Fit and finish was another down side. Even though I'm a Ford fan, they would need to address fit and finish, the fuel mileage, and provide front and rear locking differentials before I'd seriously consider one.

 

The off asphalt handling was very impressive though. It soaked up rough roads VERY well.

[+deimos444]

Ex Post Facto speed laws address this.

I don't get the joke. Ex Post Facto laws are unconstitutional.

Alas, poor Yoric I know thee not.

[+TotemLake]

Jimmy Carters Energy Polciy included the 55mph speed limit for a reason. The feds said is was bout safety. It was about using less oil.

 

Kicking in a 55mph speed limit right now would likely see oil price fall because we would save a lot of gas.

 

I used to hate the 55mph speed limit. Now I'm a fan.

Just a little OT...

 

The problem that stemmed from that energy crisis wasn't so much an oil shortage, but an oil embargo on the USA. The tankers were all sitting outside national waters waiting for the word to go in and fill 'er up when the prices reached a certain level.

[+sbell111]

... Specifically, small SUVs, 2 or 4 wheel drive, with a little bit of ground clearance. I have a couple of Jeep Cherokee XJ 4wds and am wondering if a 2wd model gets any better gas mileage. Im also interested in seeing how well the Nissan Xterra, Honda CRV, and Ford Escape do on fuel? Please only respond if you actually have experience with any of these or if you might have other recommendations.. Thanks!

Don't throw 4wd out the window just because your gas mileage will suffer. I rather doubt that there is much difference between the mileage that you will get in 2H versus if the vehicle was 2wd. You may as well have 4wd available when you need it.

 

Back to the thread, yesterday, I forgot to take my WJ out of 4wd. It was getting 19mpg in 4H. I put it in 2WD and my mileage went up to 24mpg.

 

This morning, I had my cruise set on 55mph and was getting 25mpg. I ran into some traffic and slowed to a steady 52mph and my mileage settled at 30mpg.

[+heather3781]

I know some states have recognized the hazards of driving too slow (specifically, driving AGAINST the flow of traffic). I recall Maryland has a minimum speed posted. Does the city of Baltimore still use the helicopter to catch those "slowers"?

We always made fun of those signs - seen plenty of people pulled over going too fast...but never too slow....and no I have never once seen a helicopter - they might be too busy catching the criminals i guess

[+Renegade Knight]

...The problem that stemmed from that energy crisis wasn't so much an oil shortage, but an oil embargo on the USA. The tankers were all sitting outside national waters waiting for the word to go in and fill 'er up when the prices reached a certain level.

I heard that the energy crisis back then was OPEC flexing it's muscle and as you said, not a lack of oil.

 

On to sbell111's comments. The extra weight of a 4x4 has more impact than the extra gears. I've read that 45mph is the best speed for mpg. The wind resistance is low and you are moving forward fast enough to cover some ground with the oil your burning. Your motor probably has to be geared for it to take the best advantage. We had our minivan on a trip and took some backroads. We probably averaged 50mph and cleared 30mpg. Not something I've ever seen that van do again on the interstate or around town.

[+sbell111]

I didn't even think about the extra few hundred pounds. Hmmm. I'll stick with what I have.

[+berryzang]

However, you also might be able to save by using higher octane fuel.  Around here it costs just 6% more but in my cars gives me 10% more mileage--thereby reducing your per mile cost.

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

I'm a total math dork. Here's a chart showing the gas mileage I have gotten on my 2000 Blazer 4wd since I bought it in January. I also noticed that while it was cheaper to run my 2002 S-10 Crew Cab 4wd on Premium, it's cheaper to run my Blazer on Regular. Same engine, both 4wd, different weight. You can see the longer non-stop highway trips that I have driven have MPG's around 20 to 21, while my normal everyday driving is around 17 to 18, and when I use my 4wd in the winter it's down to 15 and 16.

 

Blazer Fuel chart

[+Skyman]

(specifically, driving AGAINST the flow of traffic).

It just hit me would this be one way streets only, and are they all wild eyed and frothing at the mouth when this is being accomplished. ;)

[+budd-rdc]

However, you also might be able to save by using higher octane fuel.  Around here it costs just 6% more but in my cars gives me 10% more mileage--thereby reducing your per mile cost.

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

The keyword is might.

 

Be sure to stick with the Octane rating recommended by the manufacturer. If your car's engine has a relatively short stroke and low compression ratio, using a gasoline with octane higher than recommended isn't a good idea - more unburnt fuel out of your tail pipe.

 

Almost all computer-managed engines can adjust to octane lower than recommended, at the sacrifice of efficiency. This might be where the advice is relevant.

[nobby.nobbs]

opec decide how much of the stuff to pump out of the ground, to artificially keep price high. no shortage, no supply problems. price is basically set by them.

 

now where can i buy that solar power or hydrogen car? strange how neither have been really developed. can't have anything to do with goverment getting so much cash from oil companies......

[+TotemLake]

opec decide how much of the stuff to pump out of the ground, to artificially keep price high. no shortage, no supply problems. price is basically set by them.

 

now where can i buy that solar power or hydrogen car? strange how neither have been really developed. can't have anything to do with goverment getting so much cash from oil companies......

The solar car has been relegated down to a novelty item. With today's technology, you can't get enough solar cells on the vehicle and make it cheap enough to make it a consumer item.

 

Hydrogen at current rates sells for about $2 per pound YMMV. That equates to about $16 per gallon. Twelve pounds will drive a Hummer 2 60 miles.

 

Gas is still cheaper at twice the price.

[nobby.nobbs]

which would seem to agree with what i said then?

 

how much do you think either would cost if there was some serious research and development done?

 

hydrogen. can be made very cheaply using a solar power station. once set up costs done running fairly cheap.

 

not really in the interest of esso et al.

[+TotemLake]

I know some states have recognized the hazards of driving too slow (specifically, driving AGAINST the flow of traffic). I recall Maryland has a minimum speed posted. Does the city of Baltimore still use the helicopter to catch those "slowers"?

We always made fun of those signs - seen plenty of people pulled over going too fast...but never too slow....and no I have never once seen a helicopter - they might be too busy catching the criminals i guess

Don't impede in Washington. You will get pulled over. 5 cars or more behind you on a 2 lane road will invite the local enforcement to boost their revenue through you. I have also witnessed cars in the left lane on the freeway get pulled over for the same thing.

Edited August 17, 2005 by TotemLake

[+carleenp]

I didn't read all the thread. I apologize. But I thought this story would be amusing (although I was not amused at the time): I was going to pick up a visiting cacher at an airport. I missed the construction zone and got a $291 ticket when driving at 85 or so mph (norm here is 75 and construction w/ double fines 65). First speeding ticket ever! ACK! Anyway, a few weeks later the top Nebraska football recruit was caught in the same area going 104. The officer, upon learning it was the "top" and "famous" recruit, gave a warning! It made the news. I was quite peeved!

 

Anyway, I know driving slower will save money. I now drive slow in the construction zone! I just can't do it otherwise though, as hard as I try.....

[+TotemLake]

...The problem that stemmed from that energy crisis wasn't so much an oil shortage, but an oil embargo on the USA. The tankers were all sitting outside national waters waiting for the word to go in and fill 'er up when the prices reached a certain level.

I heard that the energy crisis back then was OPEC flexing it's muscle and as you said, not a lack of oil.

 

On to sbell111's comments. The extra weight of a 4x4 has more impact than the extra gears. I've read that 45mph is the best speed for mpg. The wind resistance is low and you are moving forward fast enough to cover some ground with the oil your burning. Your motor probably has to be geared for it to take the best advantage. We had our minivan on a trip and took some backroads. We probably averaged 50mph and cleared 30mpg. Not something I've ever seen that van do again on the interstate or around town.

Symantics. The embargo was the result of the USA supporting the Jewish State of Israel. I used to have links of the pictures of all the tankers full to the brim with oil to be refined sitting off the coasts just waiting for the OK to dock. It was very impressive. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find those links now.

 

On topic, 45MPH makes my Jeep GC lug. The truth of the matter is I get better mileage at the higher speed than at the lower speed which surprised me when I first figured out where the sweet spot was.

[+TotemLake]

which would seem to agree with what i said then?

 

Maybe it's late but I don't see it.

 

At those prices, it costs $24 to send a Hummer 2 60 miles. It takes roughly 4 gallons of gasoline to push the Hummer 2 the same distance. Let's be generous and call the price of gas at $3 per gallon. That's still half the cost of current hydrogen prices.

 

Hydrogen research has admittedly been on and off, but that's because there is no cheap way to make it... with today's technology. Today's solar cells can't achieve the power needed to make it.

 

You also have to look at the technology that's capable of servicing and maintaining the supply of hydrogen, while keeping an extremely explosive liquified gas safe in industrial America under OSHA regulations. The size of the hydrogen tank capable of holding 12 lbs. isn't small. It takes up almost half the cargo space of the Hummer and although it isn't terribly expensive to convert the gas motor to run on hydrogen, it isn't cheap either.

 

OTH, folks have been experimenting with solar cars for the past 2+ decades and still can't get past the single rider cockroach design to be effective.

 

how much do you think either would cost if there was some serious research and development done?

 

hydrogen. can be made very cheaply using a solar power station. once set up costs done running fairly cheap.

 

not really in the interest of esso et al.

 

Pure speculation and would have to also coincide with conspiracy theorists which I have a problem buying into on most fronts.

 

Gas prices is going to have to go up a lot more to make hydrogen look good.

 

Edited to add you can get hydrogen cheaper, but it has to be purchased in large bulk to get it below $2 per pound to I think I saw as lowas $1.40 per pound. Your average car isn't going to be able to carry that kind of bulk purchase.

Edited August 17, 2005 by TotemLake

[+budd-rdc]

opec decide how much of the stuff to pump out of  the ground, to artificially keep price high. no shortage, no supply problems. price is basically set by them.

 

now where can i buy that solar power or hydrogen car? strange how neither have been really developed. can't have anything to do with goverment getting so much cash from oil companies......

How about what happened to the electric cars, specifically, GM's EV-1? GM forced happy owners to return them against their will, so they can be scrapped. If you want to pursue conspiracies, that one should be the one to study.

 

I ignore politicians promoting technology, so the Hydrogen hype never caught on with me. However, I've seen and ridden a prototype Hydrogen fuel cell powered bus at the World Expo in Japan. It's cool to see water coming out of the tail pipe as a by-product.

 

Unfortunately, the infrastructure and economics favor fossil fuels at the moment, and OPEC being the "supply", they are ALWAYS in the position to dictate prices.

 

And I wouldn't just blame government for everything - they are wagging the tail for lobbyists, who seems to profit from both good and bad policies and escape blame altogether.

[CoyoteRed]

I predict once the hybrid cars catch on fuel cell cars will hit the scene. Right now folks are skeptical of hybrids and truthfully some hybrids just don't get it. Some hybrid variants only get a mile or two better mileage than the gas sister. Why bother?

 

Fully electric cars really on make sense for short runs and when the power stations aren't running fossil fuels.

 

I'd like to see more cars like the Insight but with the lastest technology. The Insight with its older technology got nearly 70 MPG if you drove conservatively. I drove one it certainly wasn't a dog. I think it wasn't a hit because if was so small. I don't mind small if I'm commuting.

[nobby.nobbs]

i realise there ar eamny practical probs with the idea od hydrogen and elec car. just used as an example.

 

what i don't understand is why people aren't pushing more for bio fuel. ???

 

using sunflower oil in diesels and designing engines to run on alcohol. both of which are carbon balanced ie porduce only what they take when grown. and both out of grasp of opec.

 

$80 a barrell is on it's way. time to get that bike serviced and try to get fitter.

[+TotemLake]

Sorry to burst your bubble on that too. A study that was just released to the news last month indicated bio fuel wasn't worth the energy output, that it burns more energy to produce than it provides.

 

From king5.com:

Researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

 

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

I predict once the hybrid cars catch on fuel cell cars will hit the scene. Right now folks are skeptical of hybrids and truthfully some hybrids just don't get it. Some hybrid variants only get a mile or two better mileage than the gas sister. Why bother?

 

Fully electric cars really on make sense for short runs and when the power stations aren't running fossil fuels.

 

I'd like to see more cars like the Insight but with the lastest technology. The Insight with its older technology got nearly 70 MPG if you drove conservatively. I drove one it certainly wasn't a dog. I think it wasn't a hit because if was so small. I don't mind small if I'm commuting.

There was a story on one of the News Magazine Shows yesterday about the current bread of Hybreds...

 

It seems that they don't really get any more milage than regular cars and on top of that you have the added cost of a much more expensive car and the electricity bill for the constant re-charging.

 

It seems that the owner of a Toyota Pryus (spelled wrong) will save a whopping $87 dollars over the life of the car!

[+Right Wing Wacko]

Sorry to burst your bubble on that too. A study that was just released to the news last month indicated bio fuel wasn't worth the energy output, that it burns more energy to produce than it provides.

 

From king5.com:

Researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

 

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

And that study only included the costs of Processing the already harvested crop. When you add in the energy that the farmers expend to grow and harvest the crop, BIOfuels become even less attractive.

 

They are a Waste of energy, not a source of it

[+cachew nut]

Gas has always been expensive. Today's prices seem a bargain though, if you put things in perspective. When I started driving, we complained about 52 cents a gallon for gas, and drinking water was free, bottled water hadn't been invented yet.

 

Today we pay a buck or more for a 16oz bottle of water and complain about $2.50 a gallon for gas. We pay more for water than we do for gas! Gas prices have to climb a whole lot more to make it seem like water is a bargain again.

Edited August 18, 2005 by cachew nut

[+budd-rdc]

I hope everyone reading this thread has waken up on how dependent on fossil fuel we really are.

 

Many of our manufacturing processes (just name anything) depends on fossil fuel in one form of another. I doubt we can manufacture solar panels without them. And I believe coal is considered fossil fuel, too.

 

I know that someone locally succeeded in producing biodiesel from used donut and french fries oils. Haven't heard about how truly renewable it is, though.

Edited August 18, 2005 by budd-rdc

[+jon & miki]

It seems that the owner of a Toyota Pryus (spelled wrong) will save a whopping $87 dollars over the life of the car

I just rented a Prius in San Francisco and drove it for 1400 miles over a variety of terrains and roads, both stop and go and long distance freeway driving at or above prevailing speeds. My gas mileage averaged 47 miles to the gallon for the entire trip.

 

Many years ago, I rented a Pinto. The Pinto got great gas mileage, but couldn't get out of its own way and merging into a freeway was a nerve wracking experience. I've rented a few high-mpg cars since then and generally have been disappointed with their drivability.

 

No such problem with the Prius. There is plenty of power for passing, acceleration from a standstill is good, and braking is excellent.

 

I'm not sure what they were comparing with to decide that a driver would only save $87, but I would assume that the price of the car (compared to some other high mpg car), the per gallon price of gas and the number of miles driven would be factors. Some dealers are also charging a premium for the Prius, so perhaps they factored that in as well. They probably did not factor in the tax rebate associated with ultra-low emission vehicles either since the supporting law only passed in the last few weeks. Higher gas prices would certainly improve the "benefit", but without access to their assumptions and calculations, it's hard to say how much.

 

I would bet the study cited did not take into account what most purchasers consider, the drivability of the car as well as cost and any expected savings. $87 one way or the other would not sway me at all in a new car purchase - other factors Iincluding "green" factors like low emissions) would weigh far more.

 

Based on my experience, the Prius is a car with great gas mileage and is still a lot of fun to drive (and I quite enjoy pulling up next to an SUV in a gas station, filling up with 7 or 8 gallons and being out of there before the SUV even has half a tank, especially at current gas prices).

 

I'm looking forward to renting a 4-wd Highlander hybrid as soon as I can, though from what I've read, tbe HH seems to be designed more for higher performance at some expense in gas mileage, and given the price, probably won't make much sense based on pure economics.

[CoyoteRed]

It seems that they don't really get any more milage than regular cars and on top of that you have the added cost of a much more expensive car and the electricity bill for the constant re-charging.

Don't know where you got your information, but the highlighted part of your quote proves it has little to do with hybrids. Hybrids generate their own electricity with a gasoline engine, thus the reason they are called "hybrids."

 

Modern technology, though, has made hybrids much more than just an gas engine charging batteries. The gas motor can be called on to give more power when needed or shut off when it's not needed. Braking generates power to charge the batteries as does coasting down hill.

 

But let's take the Insight, it doesn't have the latest technology. In fact, the easiest way to describe this hybrid is "electric assisted" as you start the gas engine and drive it just like any manual transissioned little car. ...only it can get upwards of 70MPG and anything under 50MPG lets others know you are a serious lead-foot.

 

Oh, and you can put up an Insight for around 10 grand used. How's that for savings?

[+tabulator32]

I've been hearing on the automotive radio talk shows that electric cars and hybrid cars are still too new and don't have a design which allows them to be efficient in the overall realm of things.

 

What I mean is...they require more maintainence and have a lower resale value and don't last as long as conventional vehicles made today. Also, because they are new, they really haven't settled into a good frame with the insurance comapnies and insuring them is a bit steep.

 

Again, this is just stuff i heard on the talk shows on the radio.

 

Also, one guy said that after taking into consideration all the other expenses, the fuel costs he saved came out to $82 over five years.

 

I don't own a hybrid but I was seriously considering one for my next vehicle.

 

'Anyone know about their 1. Longevity? 2. Resale value? 3. Insurance costs?

[CoyoteRed]

1. Longevity? 2. Resale value? 3. Insurance costs?

Considering the top hybrids are either a Toyota or a Honda, I'd say the longevity is pretty good, especially the Toyota.

 

Resale value right now, I'm sure, is pretty good considering I've heard that dealers are selling the Prius for above MSRP.

 

Don't know about insurance costs but if you consider it's mostly based of value, weight, and cost of repairing after an accident, I don't see it being much different.

[+Team Perks]

It seems that the owner of a Toyota Pryus (spelled wrong) will save a whopping $87 dollars over the life of the car!

While I imagine that number isn't based on any real math, there is some truth to be told here.

 

Recently, a friend told me she was thinking of buying a Ford Escape hybrid so her fuel costs wouldn't be as much. I did some quick math, and came up with the following:

 

According to the Ford website, the base price of a standard 2wd, 4-cyl Ford Escape is $19,995. The base price of the hybrid version is $27,515. That's a $7,520 difference in cost.

 

The "average" fuel economy (guesstimated by averaging out the city/highway mpg) of the standard Escape is 24 mpg, whereas the economy of the hybrid is 33.5 mpg.

 

Assuming gas prices of $3 per gallon (which is roughly where we are here in Southern California), it would cost you 12.5 cents per mile in gas for the standard Escape, and 8.96 cents per mile in gas for the Escape hybrid.

 

Thus, the Escape hybrid will save you 3.54 cents per mile in fuel costs. At that price, you would have to drive 212,429 miles before you've made up for the extra $7,520 you spent on the hybrid version. That, of course, assumes you paid cash for the car and didn't have to finance that extra seven grand.

 

While I support those who buy hybrids for environmental reasons, anyone buying a hybrid purely for economic reasons should consider that they might not be reaping the financial benefits for a long, long time.

[+sbell111]

I wonder if an escape hybrid will ever see 200,000 miles before it shudders, gasps, and dies.

[CoyoteRed]

...purely for economic reasons...

...wouldn't buy a new car.

 

Saving fuel isn't always about saving money.

 

Besides the Ford Escape hybrid is probably one of the worst examples.

[+deimos444]

And how much to replace the batteries and how are they recycled?

[+budd-rdc]

I've been hearing on the automotive radio talk shows that electric cars and hybrid cars are still too new and don't have a design which allows them to be efficient in the overall realm of things.

 

What I mean is...they require more maintainence and have a lower resale value and don't last as long as conventional vehicles made today.  Also, because they are new, they really haven't settled into a good frame with the insurance comapnies and insuring them is a bit steep.

 

Again, this is just stuff i heard on the talk shows on the radio.

 

Also, one guy said that after taking into consideration all the other expenses, the fuel costs he saved came out to $82 over five years.

 

I don't own a hybrid but I was seriously considering one for my next vehicle. 

 

'Anyone know about their 1. Longevity?  2.  Resale value?  3.  Insurance costs?

I think those are valid questions, but here are a few examples to encourage people to do more extensive research on their own if they are serious about buying a vehicle:

 

In the mid 1980s, Honda decided to create a new "brand" called Acura and released the Legend and the Integra models. Although auto magazines did performance tests and liked them, many were skeptical of their reliability due to the brand being "new." The cars were rather underpriced at the time, so the new buyers got helluva deal. Of course, new brand doesn't mean new platform, so the reliability question was really moot. After just a few years, Acura became synonymous with quality. Toyota and Nissan followed suit soon after with Lexus and Infiniti, doing the same thing - use a known platform with tweaked bodywork and create a new brand.

 

For the Toyota Prius, it IS a brand new platform, but I know firsthand that they were available to Japanese consumers for at least two years before they were released here. The platform is now second generation. Ford is paying Toyota license fees to use their hybrid technology, but GM hasn't - very odd, since Toyota and GM have had good relationships in the recent past.

[+tabulator32]

What do you think about the Grease Car concept?

[+sbell111]

Grease Cars are pretty cool. I could totally see owning one of those.

[+treedweller]

Sorry to burst your bubble on that too. A study that was just released to the news last month indicated bio fuel wasn't worth the energy output, that it burns more energy to produce than it provides.

 

From king5.com:

Researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

 

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

Yes, and teh study wsa totally ridiculous. It inflated energy inputs at every turn (such as factoring in food eaten by farmworkers--they wouldn't eat otherwise?). It assumed we'd clearcut virgin forests to create more cropland, which nobody I know has suggested (most BD advocates are aware that soy oil is the dominant feed stock because of convenience, not necessity). Most importantly, it lumped ethanol and biodiesel into the same group, even though BD gets significantly better return for the efforts that produce it.

 

I don't know if this study was paid for under the table by big oil, or if it just starts with a misguided premise (i.e., if we use biofuels we must replace all current petrol usage with ethanol or BD). But the reality is that we are going to run out of oil, and we will need alternatives. Note the plural "alternativeS". We probably can't create enough cropland to feed ourselves and fuel every vehicle on the road, but we can make a significant dent in our domestic trade deficit by using it as much as possible. Hel, the amount of waste oil that we throw away now is pretty huge, even if it is only a small percentage of total fuel used.

 

Hydrogen sounds cool, but will require replacement of the whole distribution infrastructure. Solar is nice in the desert, but some people see lots of clouds. Hybrid helps, but there are legitimate concerns about battery replacement, and they still burn petrol , and the newest hybrids are more gimmick than anything, getting very little improvement in mileage but increasing power to satisfy morons who think they should be able to win drag races and/or pull houses in their giant SUV's.

 

The fact is, biofuels are available now, work fine in existing engines, and can be pumped the same as gasoline from any service station that bothers to put them in the tank. Before you jump to tout the one study that discredits them, you might consider whose interests are being represented, and why.

 

treedweller

 

PS www.biodieselnow.com

[+Sonoran Privateers]

I typically average 12-15 MPH on my bicycle and about 3 1/2 MPH walking. Is the price of gas going up?

On my bike ride, I go 8mph to work, and 28mph home from work. You can guess why I like going home the most. (though, occasional road rash is unpleasent)

[+sbell111]

I don't think all of those costs of production estimates are important to anyone. The only thing that is important to consumers is how much per gallon can it be purchased for.

 

I know that there are stations in the US that sell biodeisel. There are none near me. If there are any near you, tell us what the per gallon cost is and the per gallon cost of deisel.

[+budd-rdc]

Sorry to burst your bubble on that too. A study that was just released to the news last month indicated bio fuel wasn't worth the energy output, that it burns more energy to produce than it provides.

 

From king5.com:

Researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

 

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

Yes, and teh study wsa totally ridiculous. It inflated energy inputs at every turn (such as factoring in food eaten by farmworkers--they wouldn't eat otherwise?). It assumed we'd clearcut virgin forests to create more cropland, which nobody I know has suggested (most BD advocates are aware that soy oil is the dominant feed stock because of convenience, not necessity). Most importantly, it lumped ethanol and biodiesel into the same group, even though BD gets significantly better return for the efforts that produce it.

 

I don't know if this study was paid for under the table by big oil, or if it just starts with a misguided premise (i.e., if we use biofuels we must replace all current petrol usage with ethanol or BD). But the reality is that we are going to run out of oil, and we will need alternatives. Note the plural "alternativeS". We probably can't create enough cropland to feed ourselves and fuel every vehicle on the road, but we can make a significant dent in our domestic trade deficit by using it as much as possible. Hel, the amount of waste oil that we throw away now is pretty huge, even if it is only a small percentage of total fuel used.

 

Hydrogen sounds cool, but will require replacement of the whole distribution infrastructure. Solar is nice in the desert, but some people see lots of clouds. Hybrid helps, but there are legitimate concerns about battery replacement, and they still burn petrol , and the newest hybrids are more gimmick than anything, getting very little improvement in mileage but increasing power to satisfy morons who think they should be able to win drag races and/or pull houses in their giant SUV's.

 

The fact is, biofuels are available now, work fine in existing engines, and can be pumped the same as gasoline from any service station that bothers to put them in the tank. Before you jump to tout the one study that discredits them, you might consider whose interests are being represented, and why.

 

treedweller

 

PS www.biodieselnow.com

Sorry for not snipping away any of the replies...

 

I took a different view on the study - I interpreted it as additional evidence that we are too dependent on fossil fuels and are too lazy to change our habits. It's possible the petroleum industry paid for the study, but perhaps not necessarily for malicious purposes. If they are knowingly sacrificing the national infrastructure for the sake of $numbers$ then they better be prepared for a more dangerous sort of numbers - angry masses.

 

I'm keeping my eyes open on the biodiesel trend. As with anything, time will allow the refining processes to become more efficient and the costs should become more competitive with petroleum diesel.

 

The famous "million miles" Mercedes is a 1970s diesel - I think it's a 1974 or 1975 300D. They are cheap to buy, and I wouldn't mind owning a restored one for another million miles using biodiesel.

 

There's a possible side effect to biodiesel, though - we'll need to find a way to cure exhaust smell addiction.

[+sbell111]

...There's a possible side effect to biodiesel, though - we'll need to find a way to cure exhaust smell addiction.

I was thinking the very same thing about the grease cars. I wondered if they didn't smell like McD's fries.

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't think all of those costs of production estimates are important to anyone. The only thing that is important to consumers is how much per gallon can it be purchased for. ...

This is the second post today that cuts like a knife through all the bull. I agree. It may take 200% more energy to produce a gallon of biodiesel, or ethanol for FFV's but if I can get it for a buck fifity a gallon that's the botton line.

 

I've got a rig in my driveway right now that could run diesel unmodified. There is a good chance it could do the 'grease' concept with little to no modification. Now I just have to sell my other two rigs to pay to rebuild it so it runs at all...

[+TotemLake]

Sorry to burst your bubble on that too. A study that was just released to the

 

snip

 

The fact is, biofuels are available now, work fine in existing

snip

 

treedweller

 

PS www.biodieselnow.com

Of course, you're also figuring in the $3B in government subsidies to make it viable... right? Obviously there's more than one side to every subject but I question the viability of the whole process when each side doesn't take everything into account.

 

That web site you pointed at would be more than happy to paint things nice and rosy. I noticed they didn't go into the cost of energy input versus the return of energy output. What's up with that? If you're going to speak against a study's returns, the least you can do is provide a source for your info. I'll be more than happy to look at it. Until then...

 

You'll notice too, I never said it doesn't work fine, I merely pointed out the output of energy isn't equal to the input of energy. That is, just like petro, it isn't self-sustainable. It's like eating rabbit. You can eat it till you're full, but you'll still starve to death on it.

[+TotemLake]

I don't think all of those costs of production estimates are important to anyone.  The only thing that is important to consumers is how much per gallon can it be purchased for.  ...

This is the second post today that cuts like a knife through all the bull. I agree. It may take 200% more energy to produce a gallon of biodiesel, or ethanol for FFV's but if I can get it for a buck fifity a gallon that's the botton line.

 

I've got a rig in my driveway right now that could run diesel unmodified. There is a good chance it could do the 'grease' concept with little to no modification. Now I just have to sell my other two rigs to pay to rebuild it so it runs at all...

All I know is with LNG, you can get it for less, but the output is much lower than gasoline. So, even with the lower price, you're still at or above the cost of petro for the same output.

 

Honestly, I'll be willing to pay more for my energy output if it will at least beat the petro's output by double and if it can be self-sustainable. In other words, it needs to be able to eat it's own dogfood and still provide enough for the masses needs.

[+sbell111]

I only am interested in cost per mile.

[+Peanuthead]

"There's a very good book written by ...Sikorsky called "How to Get More Miles Per Gallon" ...It's an old book but the concepts still apply."

 

That's all well and good, but I don't commute or Geocache in a Helicopter!

[nobby.nobbs]

as has been said doesn't matter what we decide sooner or later the existence of petrol is going to cease to be.

 

problem needs to be addressed before then.

 

bofuel using more nergy. maybe so but look long term.

 

set up solar power plants in the deserts. use this power to convert bio fuels into stuuf usable in cars. thus sustainable power source for vehicles that we can use for as long as we need. solar power in practical form for cars.

 

that's until the pocket fusion plants are made or we get a visit from the aliens who just give us the solution for free....

 

meanwhile we are just going to see the rpice rise slowly as time goes on. never going to go back down.

[+budd-rdc]

"There's a very good book written by ...Sikorsky called "How to Get More Miles Per Gallon" ...It's an old book but the concepts still apply."

 

That's all well and good, but I don't commute or Geocache in a Helicopter!

He's a car mechanic, not a helicopter designer. I posted the ISBN number so you can look it up.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned nuclear as a renewable source. The three main concerns of nuclear have been solved the last I heard; run-away reactions, disposal, and (something else that I forget.)

 

For watching a documentary, the run-away reaction problem was actually an easy fix by giving the fuel room to expand. Doing so made it self regulating.

 

Disposal was solved by a technique of recycling the waste back into the fuel.

 

With a renewable and safe energy source like nuclear, you can charge batteries and use it to convert other sources into portable energy to be used like we use oil today.

 

This is all academic. I'll continue my savings with my right foot until something better comes along.

[+Slammer180]

and has become almost relaxing.

 

Around here if you do 55 its not relaxing to have someone come up on your rear at 70 MPH then tailgate you while flashing their high beams until you have a opportunity to pull over and let them pass.

 

Also, if the cops catch you doing 55 they're liable to pull you over on suspicion of DWI. It happened to me!

 

It does save gas though, which is why the 55 speed limit was implemented in many states during the 70's oil crunch.

When I saw your post I thought that you must be from New Jersey. Then I looked at your profile and had to laugh. I'm from NJ but don't live there anymore but go home once a year to visit family and remind myself why I don not live there any more! I agree with what your'e saying!