Foreign oil and the Prius

Since US is a NET importer of 8,000,000 barrels a day, 50% of our requirements.

Saying we "export 18% of what we produce" makes no sense. We simply process some of the oil into products for resale, fertilizer for example.

 

40 mpg ICEs??? Mostly a myth. That's highway miles under the best of conditions. Most of us live in cities or suburban environments and spend considerable time stopped at lights and in traffic. Those "almost" 40 mpg cars drop down to 20, while the Prius might drop down to 45.

They are also not much more than two seater golf carts, while the Prius is a midsize that even my 80 yr old dad can get in and out of.

 

It makes perfect sense. Talking about crude oil production, not refined oil products.

We produce 9 million barrels per day, and of those we export 1.7 million. Thats over 18% exported.

 

It is like any other car, it all depends on the driver and conditions. There are prius drivers that get worse than the epa ratings, and those that get much more. Same can be said about "normal" cars.

If I could get 30mpg on the highway with my old grand marquis, then getting the advertised mpg out of something like a ford focus, which is hardly a golf cart, isn't impossible.

 

I'm all for 40 mpg ICEs. But in reality most cars are driven at sub-highway speeds, and in somewhat stop-and-go conditions. So they are not really 40 mpgs.

I think the fairest way to compare IVEs to a standard hybrid is to look at the COMBINED. mpg. Prius gets 50. What do the others get?

 

IIRC most if not all the oil sold to be processed into gasoline that is used by the Mid Atlantic states (MD/DE/VA/DC/Pa) is foriegn oil so practically nobody could drive in Washington DC if foriegn oil were cut off.

 

Everybody would have to live on 40% of the oil they currently use for heating and transportation.

Average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline a year so could you live on 200 gallons of gasoline. That's 12,000 miles in my Prius. I'd make it on my ration of gasoline.

 

Since I drive 36,000 miles per year, I won't. I guess you will have to give me a ride

 

Car pooling would be popular as would Chevy Volts. With a 50 mile range, it would cover most people's commute and they could sell their gas ration tickets.

 

Gas ration tickets? :rofl:Your mad.

I know! Lets create a National Socialist Party and unite behind one leader. Oh wait somebody already tried that...

 

Realize you were born yesterday but you can read up.

[SIZE=+2]There's a War on, You Know![/SIZE]
During the Second World War, you couldn't just walk into a shop and buy as much sugar or butter or meat as you wanted, nor could you fill up your car with gasoline whenever you liked. All these things were rationed, which meant you were only allowed to buy a small amount (even if you could afford more). The government introduced rationing because certain things were in short supply during the war, and rationing was the only way to make sure everyone got their fair share.

Hey waddayknow. There's a war on RIGHT NOW, been on for 21 years. A long drawn out war for oil in the Middle East with no end in sight. US troops dying every day to bring you that low priced gallon of gasoline that Exxon sells to you for a tidy profit.

 

Rationing commodities during WWII, and "selling my ration ticket" to get to work, are two totally different things. If you really think we are in the middle east solely based on your "oil wars" uncited hypothesis then perhaps it is you who were born yesterday.

 

Maybe he remembers the gas ration coupons printed in the 1970s. Though I don't remember any states actually distributing them.

 

...Prox in your region PNW, electricity borders on free-of-charge due to wonderful hydro-electric resources. So you propose ban gasoline and force EV's on all of us. I already knew (from PriusChat) this is a common West Coast eco-attitude, so fine, you can do it out there. The problem comes in when you try to say the EV approach must be mandated as the national policy based West Coast green values (namely NIMBY re: fossil fuels).

PS- Car pooling used to be nice but flex time killed it

 

lol. That would make the politicians take notice

The idea is to use more North American oil and reduce consumption so that less OPEC oil is needed. Everyone driving a prius isn't enough to do it, though it will take substitution of some vehicles to alternatives like cng and plug-ins, as well as substituting ethanol, plant fibers, and natural gas for industrial and heating uses of oil.

 

Not planning on eating?

 

This is a confusion of amounts with rates.

We have 20 Billion Barrels (amount) (in US known sources). We consume 20 Million Barrels per day (rate) (of which 9 Million is from US sources). At that rate, we run out of US sources in about 7 years. And then we are COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on foreign oil.

On the other hand if we use MORE US oil (rate), and less foreign oil (rate). Let's be extreme and say 100% (rate), and are amazingly frugal (for us) and use 50% less (rate) total. We will then consume 10 Million barrels per day (rate), and run out in 5.5 years. And then we are COMPLETELY DEPENDENT on foreign oil.

 

lol. People seem to be clueless of how much oil is in the stuff we buy.

You should note I said North American, not US oil. This region includes canada and mexico. Canada has 175 Bbl of proven reserves. To stick to North American reserves is doable but it includes using unconventional oil as a larger percent, substitution, and consuming less. The rest of the world is increasing oil use, which means if the US does not reduce, then things just become much harder. Using north american supplies reduces the chance for oil black mail from OPEC.

There is a little magic going on you will notice. The us keeps finding new proven reserves, which means only using those numbers and ignoring the unconventional stuff leads to underestimation of the availability of gasoline. These are finite though, and more expensive both in terms of money and pollution to produce. Getting rid of OPEC oil is an idea that both sides of the political spectrum can support. When you want to use less canadian oil, things get polarized quickly.

 

No, it increases the chances, unless we can get off oil completely before ours runs out. Once we have no oil, we will automatically get oil blackmail from OPEC.

Unless we find 20 Million barrels EVERY day, it doesn't matter much in the long run. Unconventional stuff, in my experience means stuff that takes almost as much energy to remove from the ground as we will get from it. There is a reason it is unconventional. The word 'availability' is inappropriate IMHO, the word 'amount' suits much better. availability implies an ongoing supply. I may be off on the amount we have, I am not about a forecast of its availability.

How exactly would that be done? We spent quite a bit, preventing Saddam from doing exactly that in Kuwait. Even if burning it as it comes out of the well, isn't really useful.

Really, the only way to 'get rid of' OPEC oil is to buy it from them. Better now, than when we have none, (and no power to bring our war machine to them), and have to pay whatever they ask. Unless you really think they will be more reasonable once we have no oil and no military.

 

I don't think I was saying anything different. But if we reduce to what is produced in North America now, that is a first step. Depending on underproduction and over consumption is not a good thing, and this has been going on since the 1960s.

The US has had about 20Bbl in proven reserves for the last 10 years. It just hasn't changed, but will go down in the future. The current use of unconventional is the oil sands. You can't just stick a straw in the ground, it costs more, and it looks like it creates more environmental damage (unless you include saddam setting fire to the oil fields), but there is a lot more energy in it then it takes to get out of the ground.

The forecasts on conventional are about 40 years at current consumption levels. World wide consumption levels will continue to rise, but unconventional and substitutes like electricity will happen also.

We tried going more imported in the 70s, forcing us oil companies to subsidize oil imports, and keeping prices low to stimulate consumption. It worked out rather poorly and included 2 recessions. Carter giving saddam the green light to invade iran, seemed to make him think he had the green light from bush 41 to invade kuwait. The US just should not be involved in this destructive way with dictators and thug governments. I don't want to get more involved and destroy opec, I want to use less of their oil and let the chinese, indians, and europeans buy it from that unsavory group.

We need to do the opposite. Allow the market to decide which oil to use, but raise the price to reduce consumption. Tax barrels of oil whether imported or produced locally, use a little of the money to subsidize building of refineries capable of efficiently using lower grades of unconventional oil. If consumption falls, it will naturally move production to north america. The key is getting consumption to fall though. The government policies seem hell bent to keep the US using large quantities of oil, that needs to change. Telling everyone to buy a prius isn't the answer either, but the current cafe standards will help.