Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...

In article > ,
"fclaugus" > says:

>These are the oil reserves I was talking about:
>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
>Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005
> Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)

> 1. Saudi Arabia 261.9
> 2. Canada 178.81

Um, *huh*?! Couldn't we just get our oil from O, Ca-na-da and eliminate
a *host* of problems (including marginalizing terorrists, as there's
no reason to give a **** about Islam if it weren't for their oil)?

-Kenny

--
Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898

fclaugus wrote:
> > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand.
> >
> > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true.
>
> I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term
> demand will go up. I never said people would drive more. It's possible that
> more people would drive and oil would be used more for other purposes such
> as power generation. Also, services such as shipping and air travel become
> cheaper, leading to more demand for those services, which consume large
> quanities of oil derived fuels.

Driving is just one use for oil. Many clothes are made of synthetic
materials (IOW they are petroleum based). If petro was free, why would
you wash your clothes. It would be easier just to throw away your
current set and buy a new set every day.

"Furious George" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> fclaugus wrote:
> > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand.
> > >
> > > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true.
> >
> > I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term
> > demand will go up. I never said people would drive more. It's possible
that
> > more people would drive and oil would be used more for other purposes
such
> > as power generation. Also, services such as shipping and air travel
become
> > cheaper, leading to more demand for those services, which consume large
> > quanities of oil derived fuels.
>
> Driving is just one use for oil. Many clothes are made of synthetic
> materials (IOW they are petroleum based). If petro was free, why would
> you wash your clothes. It would be easier just to throw away your
> current set and buy a new set every day.

Exactly, with lower oil prices, we will consume more oil.

Kenneth Crudup wrote:
> In article > ,
> "fclaugus" > says:
>
> >These are the oil reserves I was talking about:
> >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
> >Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005
> > Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)
>
> > 1. Saudi Arabia 261.9
> > 2. Canada 178.81
>
> Um, *huh*?! Couldn't we just get our oil from O, Ca-na-da and eliminate
> a *host* of problems (including marginalizing terorrists, as there's
> no reason to give a **** about Islam if it weren't for their oil)?

It is not currently economically feasible to obtain oil from Canada.
They have large deposits of oil sands. Conventional oil (e.g., Saudi
oil) can be pumped from the ground and sent to the refinery. Oil sands
must be mined and rigorously treated before it can be sent to the
refinery.

More oil may come from Canada if (1) the price of oil rises to justify
the costs of recovery and/or (2) new technology is developed to reduce
the costs of extraction. OTOH Canada is a sovereign nation. Why
should they suffer any environmental, social, or other problems so that
spoiled Americans can continue to speed on highways?
>
> -Kenny
>
> --
> Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles
> H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898

"Kenneth Crudup" > wrote
> "fclaugus" > says:
>
>>These are the oil reserves I was talking about:
>>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
>>Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005
>> Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)
>
>> 1. Saudi Arabia 261.9
>> 2. Canada 178.81
>
> Um, *huh*?! Couldn't we just get our oil from O, Ca-na-da and eliminate
> a *host* of problems (including marginalizing terorrists, as there's
> no reason to give a **** about Islam if it weren't for their oil)?

Mostly because that Canadian figure includes oil sands and shale,
which costs a lot to extract the oil from.

Floyd

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Kenneth Crudup wrote:

>> Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005
>> Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)
>
>> 1. Saudi Arabia 261.9
>> 2. Canada 178.81
>
> Um, *huh*?! Couldn't we just get our oil from O, Ca-na-da

Believe me, we Canadians think about this every day. Not in terms of how
much money we stand to make from the Americans, but in terms of how long
before the American tanks roll in to "spread democracy" to us.

> > > > So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?", the
> > > > question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that increased
> > > > volume makes it cost-effective?".
> > > >
> > > > Only time will tell.
> > >
> > > Not at $2 a gallon, anyway...
> >
> > You don't know that. In 5 or 10 years it could be that it's a $500
> > option to have a hybrid over gas only. Used to be that an automatic
> > transmission was extra, now often a manual tranny costs more.
>
> Moot point, gas prices are not going to be $2 a gallon in 5 to 10 years.

If it's higher, even more incentive to buy a hybrid. Do you think gas
will be lower in 10 years?


> > > And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid,
> > > oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a few
> > > years because low gas prices would increase consumption.
> >
> > Not necessarily. People have a finite amount of time to of
> > discretionary travel, so there IS a limit to the amount of miles that
> > can be driven, hence a finite amount of fuel that people can burn in a
> > given amount of time.
>
> I'll use your answer, you don't know that.

Of course I know that. There's a finite amount of time in a day,
therefore there's a finite amount of time each person can drive.

> People will demand more cars and more people will drive.

There's also a finite amount of people that can drive.

> > Technically "world oil reserves" are depleted every time you fill your
> > tank, so I'm not sure what your point is, except to try and make a
> > political point using some hot button verbage.
>
> You are wrong again ....
>
> These are the oil reserves I was talking about:
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

So what? What's your point? Geologically the Earth isn't creating
more oil than we're using.

DTJ wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2005 12:04:04 -0800, "Larry Bud" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >fclaugus wrote:
> >> Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ?
> >
> >Every new technology is priced at a premium when it first comes out
> >until volume can decrease manufacturing costs. If the product is
> >viable enough, volume WILL increase. Look at every new CPU, HDTV, DVD
> >Player, CD Player, VCR, etc. The costs of each of those are now
> >fractions of what they first were introduced into the market. Hell,
> >DVD players were $400 5 years ago. Now they're $40 throw-aways.
>
> And NOTHING about a car has ever decreased in cost.

It may not look like that only because you're taking the car as a
whole. You get a lot more for your (adjusted) buck these days. Don't
forget about safety advances, emission reduction, MPG increase, etc.

IOW, it'd be like saying the cost of computers hasn't gone down because
when you bought your first PC in 1986, it was $2000, and today you'd
still spend $2000. Until of course you compare what you were getting
in '86 compared to today.

fclaugus wrote:
> > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand.
> >
> > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true.
>
> I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term
> demand will go up.

No kidding. Which would cause prices to go up, which would cause
demand to go down... we all know this. What's your point?

> I never said people would drive more.

Sure you did:
"And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, oil consumption would
return to it's current level in a matter of a few years because low gas
prices would increase consumption."

How else would one use more gas if not by driving more?

"Larry Bud" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> fclaugus wrote:
> > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand.
> > >
> > > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true.
> >
> > I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term
> > demand will go up.
>
> No kidding. Which would cause prices to go up, which would cause
> demand to go down... we all know this. What's your point?
>
> > I never said people would drive more.
>
> Sure you did:
> "And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, oil consumption would
> return to it's current level in a matter of a few years because low gas
> prices would increase consumption."
>
> How else would one use more gas if not by driving more?

I've already told you....

"It's possible that more people would drive and oil would be used more for
other purposes such
as power generation. (which we already do) Also, services such as shipping
and air travel become
cheaper, leading to more demand for those services, which consume large
quanities of oil derived fuels."