1
   

Gas in Mexico

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 10:24 am
cjhsa wrote:
Think about it. What could justify gas costing $1.70 less just across the border?


Taxes? Subsidies? At least that's how it works here in Europe (I know, I know, you're doing better).

International Fuel Prices
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 10:36 am
Green Witch wrote:
Why does a blow job bother you more than starting a useless, expensive war that has killed thousands of Americans with no end in sight? You don't have to answer this question - I can guess the answer.
I want to answer your question. It isn't that a blow job bothers me more. It is the fact that Clinton could have done more. However, the blame is shifted to Reagan and President Bush. That is what bothers me.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 10:39 am
TTH wrote:
Green Witch wrote:
Why does a blow job bother you more than starting a useless, expensive war that has killed thousands of Americans with no end in sight? You don't have to answer this question - I can guess the answer.
I want to answer your question. It isn't that a blow job bothers me more. It is the fact that Clinton could have done more. However, the blame is shifted to Reagan and President Bush. That is what bothers me.


Maybe we should all just praise Carter for telling us to put on a sweater and for having the foresight to put solar panels on the White House (I assume you know Nancy R. took the panels down because she found them to be unsightly when viewed from her helicopter).
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:00 am
Green Witch wrote:
..... (I assume you know Nancy R. took the panels down because she found them to be unsightly when viewed from her helicopter).
No, I didn't know that. I was reading this article though:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0430/p08s01-comv.html
Sounds to me like Mexico isn't so well off.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:03 am
I believe it is, George. See, monopolies do not always lead to higher prices.

Now, if they'd get their prices up, relative to the world price of crude, their oilfield workers would be in Mexico, instead of Texas, Louisanna, and New Mexico. They would make more money, while raising the standard of living. Mexico would have more oil available for export, and less pollution in Mexico City.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:07 am
Green Witch wrote:

Sorry cjhsa, Fox has about as much credibility as the National Enquirer. I don't look at Fox links.


That's just silly. It's a local FOX affiliate report about Mexican gas prices.

FOX News is also the #1 news outlet in the country. I don't watch much televised news, but there must be a reason (maybe people don't like whiny liberal CNN types).
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:10 am
cjhsa wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Solar energy is poised to make oil obsolete, anyway.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

I'm not sure what you find funny.

Advances in Solar technology are making huge efficiency increases.

Advances in battery technology are making huge efficiency increases.

Cheap, clean electric power will dominate.

(No to mention how well electric vehicles handle.)
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:12 am
As far back as the 1930's GM was testing turbine powered cars. They looked just like normal cars, but sounded very different. They were hard to disguise.

Just wondered if you knew that.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:15 am
We have to look at the big picture. The reality is we need to get off of fossil fuel as fast as we can, or we are going to be very hungry and cold in not so distant future. We have wasted a lot of time trying to convince ourselves that the oil supply is without end and the people of the Middle East want to be our best friends. We have raped the earth of it's dinosaur juice and now it is time to get serious about finding clean, renewable alternatives. We are all guilty for not demanding our government take action. We vote these people into office, we push them to make the decisions that they make. We need to make a bigger noise than the oil lobbyists and get on a fast track to fix the energy problem.

Shame on all of us. We have voted with our wallets for bigger cars, bigger houses and an energy policy that benefits only those who own oil stocks. It's time to change our priorities before we are living like the tribes in "Road Warrior". We have wasted enough time.

I hate paying $4 dollars a gallon, but I love the fact that people are finally waking up to the problem.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:17 am
There is no problem with oil supply. There's plenty of it.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:17 am
Green Witch wrote:
The amount of oil in the area is trivial compared to our greedy needs and the damage to the environment could be great. Even the oil companies haven't pushed for it because it wouldn't be worth the exploration expense. Americans have to start looking at the bigger picture and stop being so obsessed with keeping their piggy lifestyles afloat at the risk of destroying the beauty and purity of the earth. Thank God that the Bushies will soon be on their way out of Washington and we can begin to (hopefully) repair the damage they have wrought.
Well according to this source Alaska oil does impact our future.... http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38223.html
"If Congress were to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, crude oil prices would probably drop by an average of only 75 cents a barrel, according to Department of Energy projections issued Thursday.

The report, which was requested in December by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, found that oil production in the refuge "is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."

But the report also finds that opening ANWR could have other benefits, particularly in Alaska, where tapping the resources in the Arctic refuge could extend the lifespan of the trans-Alaska pipeline. It estimates that if Congress agreed to open ANWR this year, Alaskan oil could hit the market in about 10 years.

"I'm coming away from it saying that this is yet another an indicator that opening ANWR is important to this country and to our energy future," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska."
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:23 am
Green Witch wrote:
We have to look at the big picture. The reality is we need to get off of fossil fuel as fast as we can, or we are going to be very hungry and cold in not so distant future. We have wasted a lot of time trying to convince ourselves that the oil supply is without end and the people of the Middle East want to be our best friends. We have raped the earth of it's dinosaur juice and now it is time to get serious about finding clean, renewable alternatives. We are all guilty for not demanding our government take action. We vote these people into office, we push them to make the decisions that they make. We need to make a bigger noise than the oil lobbyists and get on a fast track to fix the energy problem.

Shame on all of us. We have voted with our wallets for bigger cars, bigger houses and an energy policy that benefits only those who own oil stocks. It's time to change our priorities before we are living like the tribes in "Road Warrior". We have wasted enough time.

I hate paying $4 dollars a gallon, but I love the fact that people are finally waking up to the problem.
I totally agree with you on this Green Witch, not that you need my approval. Oh btw, I own oil stocks Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:24 am
The only impact I see is on how long Alaskans will get benefits from exporting oil and not have to pay state taxes. It will have no impact outside Alaska.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:25 am
cjhsa wrote:
As far back as the 1930's GM was testing turbine powered cars. They looked just like normal cars, but sounded very different. They were hard to disguise.

Just wondered if you knew that.


Check out the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?" - don't worry it's not some liberal propaganda. It just takes an honest look at the history of GM's alternative energy cars. The DVD has a section that interviews the president of GM and why he thinks destroying the electric car line was the biggest mistake the company ever made. They are making a sequel that returns to GM today as they try to get back to being a strong American company by recreating the clean, electric cars. I have my money on Japan, but I hope GM proves me wrong.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:26 am
The car may be clean but where are you getting all that electricity from? And how much is it going to cost per mile?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:30 am
cjhsa wrote:
As far back as the 1930's GM was testing turbine powered cars. They looked just like normal cars, but sounded very different. They were hard to disguise.

Just wondered if you knew that.


Any source for that?

As far as I know, the German firm Opel briefly experimented in 1928 with that idea. Their prototype car managed 47mph but the project was canned shortly afterwards.

http://i25.tinypic.com/t810gh.jpg

That is thought to be the first research into turbine powered cars; then, around 1938, Rover/Rolls Royce experimented with turbines.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:31 am
cjhsa wrote:
The car may be clean but where are you getting all that electricity from? And how much is it going to cost per mile?


Yes, I know people are always saying "electricity doesn't grow on trees", but I think if you look at the numbers it is a significant savings due to efficiency. Sorry I don't remember the exact numbers, and I'm sure they would have to be updated to reflect today's market price. They do talk about this in documentary and it did make sense to pursue the technology, especially as we transfer over from things like coal to wind and hydro.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:36 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Firebird

Granted, the cars pictured there don't look like normal cars, but prototypes are often tested on the road, heavily disguised. This of course is a Volvo, but you get the idea:

http://www.6autos.com/upload/v/volvo-xc-60-prototype-winter-testing.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:51 am
cjhsa wrote:
As far back as the 1930's GM was testing turbine powered cars. They looked just like normal cars, but sounded very different. They were hard to disguise.

Just wondered if you knew that.


Any source for that?




cjhsa's source wrote:
General Motors had done research on feasibility of gas turbine engines in cars as early as the 1930s. It wasn't until the early 1950s that they began building an actual engine, with Emmett Conklin leading the project.

Emphasis by WH


Walter Hinteler wrote:
... the German firm Opel briefly experimented in 1928 with that idea. Their prototype car managed 47mph but the project was canned shortly afterwards ...
http://i25.tinypic.com/t810gh.jpg
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2008 11:58 am
I never said GM was all that cutting edge, though the new 'vette is pretty damn sweet. 95% of a Ferrari for 20% of the price.

Still, my statement was correct - GM was experimenting as far back as the 1930's. The fact that they didn't actually build a car until almost 20 years later is not pertinent to the discussion.

That Opel is pretty cool. GM owns Opel now ya know.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gas in Mexico
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/14/2024 at 07:15:22