According to this google answer: Google Answers: Carbon content of fossil fuels and dinosaurs 1 dinosaur = 460 us gallons = 1741 liter of gas. I save 1/20th of a dinosaur so far when compare to my old car. How many did you save?
If they were as thick as the deer around here I can't imagine the damage they'd cause, to my shrubs as well as when you hit one on the interstate.
You don't save gasoline when you burn gasoline. That is a fallacy. It's like the common commercial ploy: Take something that normally sells for $10. Mark it up to $15 and then put it "on sale" for $13 and tell people they are "saving" $2 when actually they are spending $13, not saving anything. In fact, you cannot "save" gasoline. You can burn it or you can refrain from burning it. A Prius burns less of it than a Chevy, but it still burns it and leaves the world with less fuel and more carbon in the atmosphere. If you want to be green, walk or ride a bike. Or drive an electric car powered by wind or solar or hydro.
Daniel: Based on the listing of your cars, you are taking "going green" to the extreme and I applaud you for it. Can you be sure all your electricity is hydro-generated? Most electricity in this country is generated by coal burning power plants. Our Prius's are super ultra low emission vehicles (SULEVs). And their gas mileage is outstanding, we got 55+ mpg on our 2nd tank with the wife using it as her commuter. SULEVs qualify to use the HOV lanes in northern VA with a single occupant. The Prius was bought in the cash for clunkers program and replaced a '94 Jeep that got 15 mpg and I'm sure the emissions were WAY higher on the Jeep. Jeep - 24.5 barrels of oil and 13.1 carbon footprint Prius - 6.9 barrels of oil and 3.7 carbon footprint We also have a Lexus RX400h which replaced an Audi S6 Avant. Audi - 22.8 barrels of oil, 12.2 carbon footprint, and EPA score 1 of 10 Lexus - 13.7 barrels of oil, 7.3 carbon footprint, and EPA score 8 of 10 EPA scores were not available for the Jeep or Prius. But based on the Audi/Lexus scores, I can only imagine the Jeep would be rated 0-1 and the Prius would be rated 9-10. We may not be going to the extremes that you are, but we are trying to do our part.
No, I just hate gasoline and cars that burn it. I cannot say I am "sure," but I called my electric utility company and asked to enroll in the program where you pay a few cents more for renewable energy. Of course, electricity is fungible, but the idea is that they promise to generate more renewable energy with your money. Problem was, they don't have such a program: They told me all their electricity comes from the Bonneville dam, except for a wee bit from wind. Yes, I agree. And I was not criticizing you. Or at least, I didn't mean to. I was just making a point about the terminology. You are consuming less petroleum, and that is admirable and I applaud you for it. But you're not "saving" energy. You're merely consuming less. Consuming less is good and praiseworthy. Saving is when you produce something and set it aside. Saving and consuming are opposites. I'm just kind of a stickler for language, because when we abuse language we fail to communicate, and since the purpose of language is to communicate, it becomes meaningless chatter if we don't use it thoughtfully. I make no pretensions to be better than anyone. Except maybe in the care I take with language.
The phrase "saving gasoline" in this case is shorthand for the extended phrase "saving gasoline over what I would have been consuming in my old car". A perfectly reasonable shorthand, as most people understand exactly what is being communicated.
As a matter of fact i didn't save any dinos today. Took the Vette out for a nice high speed run and blew 5 gals worth of those suckers right out the exchaust pipes.
When you are using less than you could have with an alternative, you are indeed saving. And, it seems he too has a gas guzzler, compared to his others As to that store example, that is fraud on the consumer, not normal practice or they would be in court, most likely.
I could think of few things that would give me more satisfaction than making Mr. Bean laugh. He has made me laugh so many times. Bringing laughter into the world is one of the most noble of professions. I am laughing now just thinking of Mr. Bean and his silly little car with the padlock welded onto it, as if he feared someone might steal it! The other day, I heard laughter and I looked that way. An SUV full of people and they were laughing. When I looked up, one of them shouted "Cool!" In two years of driving the Xebra, I've not had more than 4 or 5 negative comments, but every day people give me the thumbs-up or shout "Cool car" or some other positive word or sign. I know what you mean. I repeat my assertion that saving is producing something and setting it aside for future use. Consuming is the opposite. This mistaken attitude results from the common and dishonest commercial advertising ploy of telling people that if they buy something they don't need with money they don't have, but pay less for it than they might have paid, they are "saving." In fact they are spending, not saving. When you save, you increase a resource. When you spend or consume you deplete a resource. It is good and admirable to try to reduce your consumption. But it is not saving. Every time you burn gasoline, you are depleting, not saving. Yes, you may be depleting less than you might do. But to call it "saving" is to fall into the conspicuous consumption mindset that advertisers want you to hold, so that you will buy more of their stuff and increase their profit.
