Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Gas hasn't been $1.72 in over a decade?

It was less than that 5 years ago.

Gas sure DOES go down in price.

Gas (and oil) were VERY expensive in the mid-late 70s for example. People were sure it'd keep going up forever.

By the mid 80s oil was so cheap as to be nearly worthless. ($15 a barrel for a while)

Most thing economic are cyclical. Boom and bust. Oil prices are booming right now. Maybe half the actual cost of oil is "genuine" right now.... from a pure supply/demand perspective there's no reason for it to be anywhere near $140 a barrel though.

It'll correct itself eventually. Just like it always does.

Between untapped sea resources, oil from tar sands, shale, coal fuel, etc we're not going to run out in our lifetime. Or your kids lifetime. Or his kids lifetime.


When you have an alternative that is -actually- cheaper in full, the market will use it. That's what the market does.

Until then I'm not about to spend (between subsidies, tax breaks, and everything else) $10 a gallon for some "alternative" fuel when I can keep using gasoline for way way less.


Hydrogen, currently, costs more than gasoline as a fuel source. So does everything else you named. That's why we still use gasoline.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

I love these name calling approaches to problem solving. It so sounds just like Rush Limbaugh.

Clever argument. One question - where will you get all the raw materials to build these marvelous contraptions that do not return as much energy as it takes to build and maintain them? Electricity won't deliver them. Only oil can.

The wind farm in Vacaville, CA, on of the windiest places in the country, has been progressively shut down over the last 25 years because they can't break even on the cost of putting up the windmills, maintaining them, and waiting for the wind to blow. They aren't economical and they don't scale well. Also, there are huge problems with NIMBY.

Tidal? Great idea. Your equipment is submersed in salt water 24/7. Calculate your maintenance costs from corrosion and figure you're going to eat your profits alive just keeping the system running.

Hydro? Sure. Tell it to the "Friends of the River." They'll eat you for breakfast, lunch, and dinner with environmental concerns, and best of all, they're pretty valid concerns. Entire species that formerly thrived in the warm waters of the shallow Colorado river are now facing habitat loss, population loss, and ultimately extinction because our system of dams has completely changed the habitat. Just like wind, hydro is also unpredictable. In 1983, PG&E had a banner year for cheap hydro power and they dropped their rates because of it. They haven't had one since, and some years have been downright scary.

Geothermal - now we're getting somewhere because in theory, it could be economical and very profitable. Iceland has proved it can work on an island. Where's the money to develop it and how can we move geothermal power from where it is convenient to generate to where it needs to ultimately be used? What unexpected consequences could we face? LOTS of questions, few answers. But of all the electricity generating options, I like it best. The rest of these "solutions" have more issues than they solve.

Still, it took us 150 years to build the petroleum infrastructure at great cost. It's not going away overnight, and it's still one of the most economically viable solutions available.

And for all you guys thinking gas prices have gone up, well, in truth they haven't. In 1940 a gallon of gas cost 25 cents, and a quarter was literally a quarter ounce of silver. Guess what a quarter ounce of silver costs these days? About the same as a gallon of gas.

In fact, if you chart the price of oil in constant dollars, you'll see the price of a barrel of oil is pretty much the same today as it was in 1960. It isn't the price of gas, it's the worthlessness of our currency that is killing us. But all this has been discussed at length in the Debate forum.

dra5037

nice idea, i'm not a true fan of any of the current model hybrids. that toyota FT-HS concept hybrid is pretty sweet though. so i feel that an ISh would be more like that. a nice looking sportier hybrid. so i would consider it, but i don't do enough city driving to make it worth it.

yodeixmall

my is350 gets 28 mpg avg. maybe because i do a lot of highway, and i think 5 times before i wanna mess with someone the flys by me...i just keep my cool and cruise at 70 lol...cant wait till i die and go to heaven FREE GAS...then ill drive my is350 as i would have when i was alive...

FiveOhNine

Lance, you're wasting your breath. I know the type, and there are a lot of them nowadays. They aren't interested in the politics and economy (the reality) of change, they are only interested in the change itself. It is the same reason why we are likely to elect a socialist soon.

kuuqi

I think neither would be a viable choice. Hybrid technology costs are only effective in the long run (say a decade down the road) unless you drive extremely long distances year round. That being said, the IS sharing a performance orientated hybrid engine running at 22/25mpg and being slower than the IS350 would be useless. I would just get a 250 instead and get equal or better gas mileage (I personally get 24.5/36 on my 250awd. The 250 is already slower but with a lighter body and equal/better mileage and presumably cheaper than the hybrid, I'm all up for a 250.

As for the hybrid camry engine. Getting 33/34mpg is okay. Again, I still get equal/better highway mileage but the town is nice. However with the premium costs and an even slower car, I wouldn't want to buy one. Instead I'd have a 250 for cruises/enjoyment and take the extra money I'd save and buy a smart car for around town.

boe

Say what you like but it at least got people talking about the subject again.

As for the price of a gallon of gas in 1940 - 11 cents- about a penny more than a loaf of bread. But I won't bother to discuss how that compares to this or that - as choosing a single commodity isn't a fair assesment of the value of a product.

Wind prices have dropped significantly in cost per watt - so there are possible solutions - the right design requires minimal maintenance and maximizes efficiency. The windfarm in CA is using old turbine technology - on the plus side, they did LEARN from that attempt at producing energy from a clean solution what went wrong. You will have to break a few eggs to make an omlet. Finding a solution doesn't involve sketching something on a napkin and then flipping a switch - do you think your current combustion engine uses the same design as one from 1908?

Where do we get the money - hmm - we spent 50 billion (initial estimate) 75 billion (two weeks into the war) how many billion on the war in IRAQ? Was it about WMD or just an attempt to get good prices on oil. If we spent just 75 billion on research for geothermal, engine alternatives, wind, solar efficiencies - etc - yes there is money to be had but increasing efficiencies isn't nearly as sexy as killing apparently.

Corrosion - hmm - do we have to build items out of iron?

Hydro - friends of the river - do they kill beavers? I'm not claiming we shouldn't try and think through the effects of damming up a river - but beavers dam and it helps many things upstream and hurts many things downstream. Pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere because oil is easy to access - pretty sure will hurt the environment as well. I think we should study what is most detrimental to all life on the planet and see if there are solutions for relocating wildlife if necessary to prevent extinction although there are often ramifications of relocating wildlife that isn't always good for the native wildlife.

I'm not trying to put down all of your arguments - you have some valid questions but it seems like you are avoiding looking at all the scenarios. I agree that oil isn't going away overnight but it won't go away for another 50 years till we depleat it and the environment if we don't start trying to do something today - not 5 years from now but today. I'd rather my tax dollars were going to towards alternative fuel sources and research than endowing alternative art with grants, wars in countries that have been at war for over 3000 years, improving my consumer confidence in cars built in the US, etc - and yes, my tax dollars are going towards that nonsense.


So do we just keep saying OIL is the ONLY solution or do we start thinking long term as well as the easy short term solution? So we say oil today - do we hope that 5 years from now some non funded scientist just stumbles upon a solution that requires no new infrastructure for distibution or do we say - nahh - too expensive - let's stick with oil for now (5 years later) and see what happens another 5 years from now - too much work for right now?

In WW2 - did we say - nahh - screw the troops - it is too much work to grow our own vegetables, reduce our demand for rubber etc - Let's wait 5 more years and see if the ****'s are still a threat. There is a point where someone is going to have to pony up. Should we all just say let's wait for our economy and environment to collapse - hopefully I'll be dead by then - let the next generation worry about it.

I'm not claiming to have the answers but I'm pretty sure burying our heads in the sand and hoping everything will be OK tomorrow isn't the answer. I've worked for too many companies where "leaders" and "senior management" didn't want to spend any money in the budget for things like redundant servers, failover solutions or serious power backup. Anything that wasn't production for immediate consumption was unnecessary in their eyes and there was no room in the budget for them. Suddenly though if we did have an issue - "spend whatever it takes - we can't have that system down" became the answer. So we'd spend many times more for the same solution to get it immediately up - jerry riggged even though there was no room in the budget to save money and implement a well designed system with minimal down time. You could warn management you needed a new server as you were running out of space and there was no more data that could be removed. Well how soon will we run out of space- probably about 3 months - OK - we'll worry about it then... Do they think the issue is going away? Then when you run out of space - how did this happen?

JKA.nyc

if they put the GS hybrid engine into a 350, wouldn't it be faster...? The engine isn't that much heavier is it? and even if it was wouldn't it be offset with the lighter weight of the IS?

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

The 350 being a smaller car they'd need to find room for the batteries (which do add decent weight)


As to alternative energy. The free market will work this out.

It's not like there wouldn't be billions upon billions of dollars for a company that comes up with something better than oil.

It's not like there aren't companies working on it.

None of the solutions are better/cheaper yet though, so we don't use them.

I don't want my taxes paying for their research unless they're gonna cut me in on the profits when they figure something out.

It's funny you complain about the war though, and then cite all the innovation that WW2 caused to happen. Wars do tend to be great for invention.

(and I don't want to keep spending billions over there either, it was just a funny contradiction)

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Alternatives? Lots of them. Start here for the wave of the future.

http://www.sapphireenergy.com/

http://www.greencrudeproduction.com/

NovaIS350

If lexus makes the next IS sport variant with a hybrid, I'm all over it. Imagine 350 horsepower whilst achieving 38 mpg city and 46 mpg highway. Next car I'm getting will be hybrid or hydrogen... period. The less dependant we are on oil the better.

Kurtz

iTrader: (1)

Imagination is about the only place you'd find a car with those numbers that was even vaguely affordable by even Lexus standards.

For contrast the GS 450H falls short on horsepower (339) and WAY short on mileage (25 and 28).

I grant you it's a heavier car, but nowhere near THAT much heavier than an IS350 hybrid would be...

Seriously, run the math, even at $5 a gallon most existing hybrids are a terrible purchase for people who don't drive WAY more than average miles per year.
(and in some cases terrible even then)

LSCJJ

iTrader: (3)

I Building one..... In Tuning/testing Progress... to be debuted at EOS 7.
Electric / Gas / Hydrogen Hybrid... Est MPG: 47.

bad co

is300d that what i want a 3.0 turbo diesel v6 pumping out close to 300hp and 400lbs of torque and a 30+mpg highway

leo_k

i just want a IS350 AWD model and then i am happy. If it was also a Hybrid i would jump and jump for joy but if they made a AWD IS350 i would already be jacking off in the dealership