Gas Prices

[Jack Frost]

While it's always been true that prices are higher in the UK, Europeans drive cars that are 50% more fuel-efficient than Americans do. The average American and European spend about the same for their automotive needs, but the Americans drive more miles in less fuel-efficient cars.

They add more miles because the USA is rather a big country compared to all European countries save Russia. Plus, Europe has more mass-transportation options than the Americans. Basically, for those living out in the suburbs and countrysides... They have no choice but drive to get around. I cannot blame them... Canada isn't any better than the USA. It's probably even worse because it's less populated and you would have to go great distances to get to a sizable town. For me, I'd have to drive over 200km to get to the nearest big city (by Canadian standards) with population over 100,000 people. The West is worse since it's less populated.

[Rabble_Rouser]

I find it hilarious when people tell me that smaller cars, and therefore smaller engines, are the answer to better fuel efficiency. That is purely myth.

 

That's not what I was trying to say (size doesn't matter.... at least in engines ). Most modern engines are close to their competitors in efficiency by type... it's weight that makes the biggest difference. The bigger the car, the heavier it is (unless you've got the bucks for mostly aluminum cars like Jag XJ or the Audi A8) You could put the smallest, most efficient engine in a Yukon but it's still not going to give it anywhere near the mpg (or litres/100 KM for the metric fans) than someone in a Civic. You're right that there are a number of factors in determining mileage like tires, driving habits, transmission, weight and engine type. I drive an Acura RSX and it gets great fuel efficiency on the highway but if I'm driving like an idiot in town, I'm sure my brother's GMC 3/4 ton pickup gets better mileage.

 

While we're talking about pet peeves, mine is Hybrid cars... sure people may feel good about their driving choice but what about the batteries when they're done with them... and ask any VW Rabbit/Jetta diesel driver who gets the better mileage (and they have more fun DRIVING to boot!) I get annoyed when people say that they should force the automakers not to make big SUV's or performance cars because they're bad for the environment. They both have satisfy a need (or the manufacturers wouldn't build them) and if the person is willing to pay the bucks for the vehicle and the gas, more power to them.

 

BTW, gas is like taxes, no one likes to pay (for) them and the $amount is never low enough

 

Steve

[Dalmatia]

They add more miles because the USA is rather a big country compared to all European countries save Russia. Plus, Europe has more mass-transportation options than the Americans. Basically, for those living out in the suburbs and countrysides... They have no choice but drive to get around. I cannot blame them... Canada isn't any better than the USA. It's probably even worse because it's less populated and you would have to go great distances to get to a sizable town. For me, I'd have to drive over 200km to get to the nearest big city (by Canadian standards) with population over 100,000 people. The West is worse since it's less populated.

 

Well you must of never been to the UK! If I want to go from South Wales to North Wales I would have to drive to the nearest train station which is about 30 miles away, and thats mostly on narrow lanes. Then I'd have to take an hour train journey on the worst train company in the world to change on to another train of that company which then goes into England, thats crossing into a whole other country just to get from south to north. Then the train follows the Welsh border all the way up where you then have to change to another train again which will final take you into North Wales. Yep such good mass transport! Not to mention it actualy takes longer to get from West Wales to London then from London to Amsterdam Where I live we dont even have pulbic buses.

[wildone]

Just curious about something somewhat related. Out here in the rural less populated west of Canada (but the truth, Jack ), on average we expect to put 20,000 to 25,000 kilometers per year on our cars (12,500 miles to 15,500 miles). What is the average yearly milage that people put on their vehicles? I'm curious about different places in the world, and then how much a year they pay for their gas.

 

Steve

[Benji]

Just curious about something somewhat related. Out here in the rural less populated west of Canada (but the truth, Jack ), on average we expect to put 20,000 to 25,000 kilometers per year on our cars (12,500 miles to 15,500 miles). What is the average yearly milage that people put on their vehicles? I'm curious about different places in the world, and then how much a year they pay for their gas.

 

Steve

 

 

..........With the exception of an annual trip to Yosemite National park I would guess my mileage to be around 14,000 a year. I just filled up at $3.09 a gallon, but by using a special card the station offers discounts (by buying their goods) I paid $2.41 a gallon. (sorry, forgot to mention Las Vegas, Nevada)

Edited November 19, 2007 by Benji

[rknapp]

Just curious about something somewhat related. Out here in the rural less populated west of Canada (but the truth, Jack ), on average we expect to put 20,000 to 25,000 kilometers per year on our cars (12,500 miles to 15,500 miles). What is the average yearly milage that people put on their vehicles? I'm curious about different places in the world, and then how much a year they pay for their gas.

 

Steve

Some people drive a lot more than others. Example: My car was built in September 2002, and rolled 100,000 miles in November 2007. In five years it traveled 100,000 miles, so it has mathematically traveled 20,000 miles per year. When I bought the car in May 2005 it had about 72,000-73,000 miles on it... so the previous owner (I am the second and possibly last owner) traveled that distance in just over two and half years (it was sitting for a while before I found it). So he technically drove it 29,000 miles per year! The man was (is) a salesman for Siemens (German electronics company that my dad also works for) and drove it regularly from Washington D.C. to Boston and everywhere in between selling products to major airports and such. That was good information for me because that meant that 99% of that mileage was highway. It just might have been bad for my cooling system and possibly one of my major gaskets... we'll find out soon... Anyway, back on topic -- from my purchase of the vehicle from the company off of its lease in May 2005 through now (November 2007) I have added around 27,000 miles. So, my annual mileage is roughly 11,000 miles. Sometimes I drive a lot, sometimes I don't drive at all. When I start commuting to school next fall my annual mileage will climb rapidly as I will put 60 miles on it each day. Since I bought the car it has gone only to South Jersey a lot for school, as far south at Cape May once for a weekend, Harrisburg, PA thrice for weekend car shows, close to New York several times for various things, and as far north Vernon, NJ for snowboarding. Regularly, it currently drives between my home town and school town once a week... next fall it will do so twice every day (much shorter distance than now).

 

For another extreme, my roommate has a 1997 Honda Accord sedan. He bought it last fall from a deceased NYC womans son (who inherited the car a couple years ago). It currently has around 40,000 miles, he bought it at around 35,000 miles. I'm going to ignore the mileage the woman put on the car for the nine years that she and her son owned it since it was largely a city car while she had it, and a parking garage queen when her son had it. In the year that my roommate has had the car he has put on 5,000 miles. I'm not even going to calculate his annual mileage for you all lol.

 

BTW, the national average for annual mileage per person the US is somewhere between 12,500 and 15,000 miles per year, hence why some new car warranties last 3 years or 36,000 miles / 6 years or 64,000 miles, etc.

[Rabble_Rouser]

My annual driving has changed alot... I used to average about 30 000km per year but since I was moved to a telecommuting job I'm only putting on about 10 000km a year. People always say "oh that's better for the environment" but it's harder on the car to be sitting so much, especially brakes and batteries. Hardly a hardship, but I try to follow my mechanic's recommendation of taking a good "spirited" drive in the country at least once a week.

 

Steve

[Masked Monkey]

Oh how you all have hit many of my pet peeves.

 

Oil reserve estimates fluctuate more than Oprah'a weight, if the current administration proves anything, it is that you have to look for the political agenda of anyone reporting "factual" information. Plus, there is always the red herring of the particular issues (ie costs) of getting it out of the ground.

 

GM is a publically held corporation, those of you who come from countries with more socialistic additudes may believe that the COMPANY has a responsibility to improve fuel economy, to offer products that are more "environmentally friendly", but they don't. As a corporation GM's only responsibility is to make money for it's owners. That's it, no more, no less. In doing so, it is general practice to obey all local, state and federal laws. Under that model, the COMPANY does NOT have the responsibility of developing more fuel efficient vehicles simply out of the goodness of its "heart", and will/should only do so based on the demand of regulating authorities or consumers. You can bitch and complain all you want about the fuel economy of American made Trucks & SUVs, but the simple fact is that there is a large American demand for these vehicles, and GM consistenly makes these larger vehicles with better fuel economy than foreign competitors. It is true with any American company that as the desires of the market changes, so will the products produced, and forcing a change will result in plummeting sales (just ask Coca Cola about that whole "New Coke" thing). The FASTEST way for GM to go out of business is to say "we will not produce any vehicle with a fuel economy lower than 30 MPG highway"

 

As for the cost of refined fuel products ... well, again, there are so many factors that go into the price of a given quantity including local and national tax structures, that a simple comparison of prices comes down to an apples and oranges thing.

 

Hmm, what next ... oh, hydrogen cars. Read a study a few years ago that investigated the "failure modes" of these vehicles under normal highway accident scenarios. Apparently, there are 2 basic failure modes for the fuel cells. 1) the hydrogen escapes and simply dissipates up into the air harmlessly. 2) the whole vehicle (and much of the surround area, like the other vehicle in the accident) is consumed by a massive explosion. I certainly don't want to be the CEO of a car company that puts out it's first line of experimental hydrogen based cars only to have one BBQ a loaded school bus.

 

ok, finally,

 

Electric ... anything. Whenever you think about electically powered anything, you have to remember that electricity is basically a "use it or lose it" commodity. The cost of storing electricity is astronomical compared to the price of producing it. Currently, we have 3 basic options 1) convert it into chemical energy (battery) 2) covert it into mechanical energy (some sort of flywheel type device) 3) store it as electromagnetic energy in a capacitor bank (electric field) or in a High TC superconducting magnet (magnetic type). All of these methods are woefully inefficient. Of those options, batteries are the only commercially practical devices because the failure modes are rather benign. You don't hear of batteries exploding very often, but the recycling and disposal of batteries would be a major issue of the world converted to electric cars.

 

ok, enough bs from me, other than to say that of all the methods of generating electricity at the power levels needed to meet worldwide consuption without contributing to global warming is nuclear; not to mention that nuclear power is also fat, cholesterol, sodium, and carbohydrate free

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

[wildone]

ok, enough bs from me, other than to say that of all the methods of generating electricity at the power levels needed to meet worldwide consuption without contributing to global warming is nuclear; not to mention that nuclear power is also fat, cholesterol, sodium, and carbohydrate free

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

 

That brings up an important point that I bring up with people who do by hybrid or electric cars. In the particular area I live in, electrical generation is 97% coal generated. We do not have nuclear, yet, and we are expanding rapidly on our wind powered generation, and hydro electric isn't really feasible do to the lack of rivers and the expense. So, I wonder, it the pollution of one gasoline car more or less than the pollution created by generating electricity for the car by coal burning?

 

I'm not saying that people are polluting more by using electricity, but are they doing anything to improve the atmosphere?

 

I try to remain balanced in my opinion, as I get a lot of information from both sides as my province and the southeastern part of the neighboring province ships a train load of coal every 3 hours to New York for electrical generation, and we also are the largest producers of oil in North America.

 

Steve

[Masked Monkey]

and hydro electric isn't really feasible do to the lack of rivers and the expense.

 

Steve

 

ooooh ooooh, that hits another one.

 

It is generally believed that hydro power is less green house gas producing than coal/natural gas electrical power stations, but that may not be generally true. Hydro power generally involves the storage of vast quantities of water in places not used to having water stored (meaning you have to build a dam), even with a rapidly flowing river, you still store it so as not to "waste" the potential energy when demand is low. While the creation of a lake associated with a dam may be fun for those of you who like to water ski, the environmental damage can be quite large. Methane is > 20x more damaging a "green house" gas than is CO2, and biological material (meaning trees, bushes and illegally dumped bodies) generally produce a LARGE quantity of methane when they decompose under water. Without careful mitigation (meaning removing all the plants and dead bodies and lining the bed with cement), the reservoir will produce a greater "green house" effect than the equivalent natural gas power plant. Not to mention all of the endangered and un-endangered species that will inevitably exist on the site of your proposed hydro plant (hope Bambi and Thumper know how to swim).

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

[AFriendlyFace]

ooooh ooooh, that hits another one.

 

It is generally believed that hydro power is less green house gas producing than coal/natural gas electrical power stations, but that may not be generally true. Hydro power generally involves the storage of vast quantities of water in places not used to having water stored (meaning you have to build a dam), even with a rapidly flowing river, you still store it so as not to "waste" the potential energy when demand is low. While the creation of a lake associated with a dam may be fun for those of you who like to water ski, the environmental damage can be quite large. Methane is > 20x more damaging a "green house" gas than is CO2, and biological material (meaning trees, bushes and illegally dumped bodies) generally produce a LARGE quantity of methane when they decompose under water. Without careful mitigation (meaning removing all the plants and dead bodies and lining the bed with cement), the reservoir will produce a greater "green house" effect than the equivalent natural gas power plant. Not to mention all of the endangered and un-endangered species that will inevitably exist on the site of your proposed hydro plant (hope Bambi and Thumper know how to swim).

 

:king: Dr. Mr. Snow "Snoopy" Dog

Good point, Snowy. We as a planet are facing a lot of water-related environmental problems. Once massive rivers and wet lands are drying to trickles. We should indeed be cautious of anymore changes to this delicate balance, IMO.

Edited November 20, 2007 by AFriendlyFace

[rknapp]

I'm not saying that people are polluting more by using electricity, but are they doing anything to improve the atmosphere?

If you purchase an electric plug-in hybrid, then the best thing that you can do is charge it overnight. Those massive electrical plants run 24/7, but on low load overnight. Still, they produce a lot of waste energy overnight, so you can at least not kill the environment in vain by using some of that wasted energy.

[Jack Frost]

Well you must of never been to the UK! If I want to go from South Wales to North Wales I would have to drive to the nearest train station which is about 30 miles away, and thats mostly on narrow lanes. Then I'd have to take an hour train journey on the worst train company in the world to change on to another train of that company which then goes into England, thats crossing into a whole other country just to get from south to north. Then the train follows the Welsh border all the way up where you then have to change to another train again which will final take you into North Wales. Yep such good mass transport! Not to mention it actualy takes longer to get from West Wales to London then from London to Amsterdam Where I live we dont even have pulbic buses.

Obviously I never went there, but I'm aware that Ireland and the UK are the worst in the EU as far as I am concerned from a British guy I know. But I still believe it's better than back in the USA or Canada. Here, trains only connect to major cities close to the border and it's quite slow...it takes four days to go from one coast (Halifax, NS) to another (Vancouver, BC). Too slow compared to high-speed trains in France and Japan.

 

Just curious about something somewhat related. Out here in the rural less populated west of Canada (but the truth, Jack ), on average we expect to put 20,000 to 25,000 kilometers per year on our cars (12,500 miles to 15,500 miles). What is the average yearly milage that people put on their vehicles? I'm curious about different places in the world, and then how much a year they pay for their gas.

 

Steve

I don't have a car... I use the metro and bus to get around as I'm lucky enough to live in a city with a subway. But I do rent a car sometimes... Last time I rented one was last September, I added 1700km in two days to get to New Brunswick from Montreal. Yeah I know...it was suicide but bless those Timmy Hortons for keeping me awake. But usually, I just add about 4000-5000km per year with my parents' car whenever I stay in the US during my holidays.

 

 

Speaking of hydroelectric power, Quebec is the world's largest producer. About 97% of the power produced come from dams. Woot!

[colinian]

I live in a part of the U.S. that has excellent public transportation, the San Francisco Bay Area. I don't have a car; there's nowhere to park it at school (UC Berkeley), and renting a garage to keep it nearby but hardly ever used is dumb, especially when it costs about $90 to $300 per month to rent a garage. And keeping it at home is even dumber, it would get limited mileage as it got old. I'll wait until I've graduated to buy a car.

 

My folks drive hybrids, we have a Honda Civic hybrid sedan and a Ford Escape hybrid SUV. That helps, gas where I live at home is between $3.419 and $3.569 per gallon for regular. Here in Berkeley, a gas station near the campus has regular for $3.699. Gas prices here keep going up. Regular was $3.059 less than a month ago.

 

 

Colin

[glomph]

That brings up an important point that I bring up with people who do by hybrid or electric cars. In the particular area I live in, electrical generation is 97% coal generated.

 

Most hybrids currently on the market don't plug into the power grid at all, so the only coal power in the car is what was used in the making of the car and the batteries.

[rknapp]

Most hybrids currently on the market don't plug into the power grid at all, so the only coal power in the car is what was used in the making of the car and the batteries.

I believe 2010 is the release date for the Volt, according to the 5-year plan the UAW leaked to its members (and now the public). Plug-in hybrids are not common, but they do exist. I believe either Honda or Toyota has one as well, from a few years ago. They might not have mass-produced it, but it seems that GM is intent on doing so.