Interesting times

[oab_au]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Those were from Aussie newspapers.

I take it you were a Saddam supporter and supported Taliban control of Afghanistan?? And don't really believe there is a war on terror??

Lee

No mate I wasn't a supporter of Saddam, and I wasn't a supporter of the way George organized his demise.
Surly it did not need the death of over 1 thousand young American men and women, and the death of 20 thousand Iraqs to remove one man from power.

Fortunately democracy removed George 'painlessly'

The trouble with 'George's war on terror', was that he never defined what 'terror' was. It seemed to encompass anyone or anything, that he could aim a gun at.

Harvey.

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

You are comparing oranges with apples. Taxing the oil companies only passes the cost on to the consumer and has nothing to do with anyone being in anyone's pocket. Now IF our transportation problem ONLY covered an area the size of the state of Oregon (the size of UK)--it might be practical to overtax people as you seem to want. Our transportation requirements are far more massive than the tiny EU countries. AND, I think if you really do some research you will find that our emissions standards have been more restrictive historically than those of Europe AND Asia. As I seem to recall one of favorite preowned vehicles (Austin Healey III) was stopped from importing into the US because the company did not want to modify it to meet US emissions standards.

Not quite oranges with apples Lee, but I agree the point that the average US worker travels by car much larger distances to work, and this is a mitigating factor.

My point was about the total amount of fuel consumed per mile traveled, not about the emissions standards of the vehicles burning this fuel. Fundamental difference.

Currently most of Europe has turned or is turning to using turbo diesels for commuting. This change is being driven by the high cost of fuel, so owners would not consider buying a car that uses high amounts of petrol. For low consumption, turbo-diesels are King. While US gasoline prices remain low enough, there will be no economic driver to cause US drivers to leave high consumption larger and heavier vehicles, and change over to the more modern efficient ones.

I suspect that US auto companies and engine manufacturers do not currently have any of these fuel efficient engines to fit in their vehicles. For that reason your government will not mount any serious campaign to have commuters drive these more efficient cars, because that will drive up imports and adversely affect balance of payments and damage the sales of American autos.

In other words higher consumption over longer distances is being tolerated because the US auto industry has not caught up with Europe in producing fuel efficient cars, and your government needs to support your local car manufacturing industry. Catch 22.

Originally Posted by lhopp77

And to the expense of our military overseas, I seem to remember MANY times in the past where several countries were VERY happy to see us spend the money. As the attached AUSTRALIAN political cartoon indicates--there were and are some reasons for it. Seems the Aussies have a pretty good grasp of our political/econ situation. More than I can say for most Europeans.

Lee

Well, none of this is forgotten Lee, you know that. I also don't think for a minute you are suggesting that the way to boost the economy is to use up a lot of ordinance in foreign lands. I'm inclined to agree with Harvey though. With world economies in free-fall, it's time to mend bridges and do some de-escalation. Use the money for building up rather than blowing up.

Joe

[Mensaf]

Obama won. Pop that in the microwave, heat for 4 years, and enjoy it.

[NikFu S.]

He hasn't won yet. There is still a lot of work to do before he proves he was the right mang for the jerb.

[Stilor]

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

For low consumption, turbo-diesels are King.

I'd say that's not exactly accurate. Yes, turbo-diesels have higher MPG values. But, a) diesel is more expensive (though the price difference is not that large) and b) the same amount of oil yields less diesel than gas - that is, in terms of raw oil consumption, diesels may be on par or even worse than gas consumers.

Quite detailed description here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...wable/oil.html

As you may see, one barrel of oil produces 19 gallons of gas and 9 gallons of diesel. That is, once about 30% of the cars run on diesel, the price of diesel will adjust to meet the increased demand and the price advantage of diesel will go away. I admit we're still very far from running 30% of the cars on diesel, though

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by Stilor

I'd say that's not exactly accurate. Yes, turbo-diesels have higher MPG values. But, a) diesel is more expensive (though the price difference is not that large) and b) the same amount of oil yields less diesel than gas - that is, in terms of raw oil consumption, diesels may be on par or even worse than gas consumers.

Quite detailed description here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...wable/oil.html

As you may see, one barrel of oil produces 19 gallons of gas and 9 gallons of diesel. That is, once about 30% of the cars run on diesel, the price of diesel will adjust to meet the increased demand and the price advantage of diesel will go away. I admit we're still very far from running 30% of the cars on diesel, though

Yes, it's more like 4%.

In US refineries the ratio of Petrol [gasoline] produced compared to diesel is in the ratio you suggest above. That's because the fractionating in the refineries was designed to produce more gasoline because you are using more gasoline.

The refineries can deliver different percentages depending on design parameters, and in Europe they deliver larger amounts of diesel.

So what you are saying is only correct for the US, and you produce more gasoline because you have traditionally sold it cheaper, therefore there is a bigger appetite for it. But it is less fuel efficient for the average car compared to the latest turbo-diesels.

Read what they say here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/us-gas-addiction.htm

You will see a different perspective. Your government is taxing diesel much more heavily than gasoline. There are a couple of main reasons for this; with your lower percentage reduction of diesel they want to retain the diesel for trucks and heavy transport is one; they don't want people to change over to the more efficient European diesel cars because that will leave a lot of Detroit metal unsold is the other. So they are taxing the diesel to make it appear uneconomical to change US family cars to diesel.

A possible good way around this problem might be for the likes of Chrysler to buy in European diesel engines and fit them to American cars. That would increase the efficiency of US autos by a big percentage and keep the auto workers jobs safe. The main difficulty with this approach is high demand in Europe for the efficient diesels leaves no spare capacity in the engine factories to supply American companies, even if they wanted to go this road.

It will be a while before there is a reasonable remedy.

Joe