Debate and Discussion

American Fuel Prices decreasing - Is this fooling anybody?
isukun at 7:28AM, Dec. 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I did say that the 65 million “cars” is probably closer to total number of “cars” in the country than 250 million

I know exactly what I'm talking about, you just seem to be happy to ignore the majority of cars out there. The number of adults in this country doesn't matter. That doesn't determine how many active cars there are out there. How many taxi cabs are out there? delivery trucks/vans? rental cars? corporate vehicles? utility or fleet vans? construction and landscaping trucks? Those all COUNT. They are active vehicles that in most cases use even MORE gas than cars that people use to drive to and from work every day.

Also, going by the Census Bureau there are about 150 million people employed in the US. 77% of those people drive to work alone. That's 115.5 million active cars right there. Of the remainder, an additional 11% carpool. Gooing by the high estimate of the average carpool size that's another 3.5 million. So, just commuters are almost twice the number of cars on the road as you've been claiming. Does that mean the people at API are liars then or is it possible you just don't know what you're talking about?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
rufus_edge at 9:14AM, Dec. 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
A car is not a “car”. Have you ever heard of algebra?
How many angry lunatics can dance on the head of a pin?

Inflating tires as a solution is completely ridiculous. It's like saying “slow down before you stop; don't just slam on the brakes” or “try not to drive your RV to the supermarket everyday when you could use your hybrid.”
It's common sense, and yet a quarter of Americans are supposedly doing it.
FactCheckers
Motorists could save more than 1 billion gallons of fuel a year, right now. But expanded offshore drilling would eventually produce even more.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_about_tire_pressure.html
They don't include ANWR at all, but they do talk about ethanol and low estimates at the link.

What about CTL? Oil Shale? Tar Sands?
The amount of recoverable oil shale generated oil in this country could be over 1 trillion barrels.
http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=1c1a10c1-15fd-4ad8-a426-b9a87f635903
Triple the proven oil resources of Saudia Arabia is a pretty huge drop.

There's also sugar beet ethanol, which looks promising.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
kyupol at 9:34AM, Dec. 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006

I remember Lindsay Williams on the Alex Jones Show sometime in July 2008. That was when oil was $140 a barrel and all the economists (both mainstream and alternative) were talking about $200 a barrel oil.

Lindsay claimed that he was approached by one of those oil insiders. He can't mention his name out of fear. But he said that he was told by the oil insider, that the oil prices will go below $50 a barrel.

I thought that Lindsay was crazy. But no. He turned out to be correct.

There IS such a thing as a corporate global elite who is bent on enslaving the planet. That IS the hard cold truth. There's no debating if the Illuminati exists or not. That IS a FACT.

And why would the oil prices be pushed down?

The reason is to bankrupt the oil producing countries in the Middle East. The target is IRAN.

Face it. Iran HAS a competent, capable military. Even Israel admits it cannot take on Iran militarily. Israel cannot rely on America (or I must say, the globalist-hijacked America) to help it take Iran because the US army is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the US army is tied down fighting rag tag insurgents, how the hell can they have the resources to take on a well equipped, well trained, well organized military? Iran can strike back. Even if you take out all of Iran's missiles, air power, and armor in a shock-and-awe assault, they still have Hezbollah, Al Sadr, and other Islamic militias in other countries. And God knows if they got sleeper cells in Europe and North America. They CAN inflict damage.

In short: There's no way to take on Iran militarily. Aside from that, Dick Cheney has been exposed of a plan to start a false flag attack on Iran – dress up Navy Seals as Iranians and shoot them. And that plan didn't go through. Because the American public is already aware of “problem-reaction-solution” technique, that won't really work (9-11 is an inside job says physicists, scientists, intelligence officers, etc.).

That is why you must hurt them ECONOMICALLY.

As the oil prices go down, it will force Iran and the other oil producing countries to go to their knees. Because oil, to maintain stability, should be around $80 a barrel.

The globalist New World Order wants to teach OPEC a lesson. You don't run shit, OPEC. You can reduce production all you want. But we control the prices. So shut up and do as we tell you.

So Iran… Venezuela… STFU and bow down to the New World Order.

While in the mean time, as America's dollar weakens and loses value due to the banker bailout bill, that dollar could end up as worth less than toilet paper.

You won't be able to buy shit.

As more and more people lose jobs.

There might be Greece style riots in the USA (says Gerald Celente).

We sure live in interesting times.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
isukun at 7:43PM, Dec. 25, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
A car is not a “car”. Have you ever heard of algebra?

And can you not read? The numbers do not support your claims, so once again, I'm going to ask, which is it, are the people at API liars or are you simply mistaken in how YOU have interpreted what they have said? Even if they are using some arbitrary unit of fuel consumption, that is still only a fraction of what we actually use in this country, so the only error I'm seeing here is on your end.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
rufus_edge at 8:57PM, Dec. 25, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
You don't know what I said and you don't know what I meant either. I never made that claim that there are only 65 million cars or 65 million “cars” in this country, and I never made the claim that we don't use energy for anything other than powering cars. I never wanted to obsess over this harmless statistic and I only talked about it because you accused me personally of misrepresenting it when I never did so. Just forget about it. This is insanity.

bravo1112
Will getting mired in numbers solve the problem? Doubtful. Look at the trends, the big picture, leave the numbers to the statisticians and make something happen. Look at Brazil. They saw the trends and are trying to do something different and it is working a lot better than how the USA (and definitely China and India) is working out these problems.

Is it perfect? Is it effective? It's better than nothing and hoping for some future technology that will solve all our problems. What can be done now? Reading and arguing over numbers or using the numbers to form a workable plan of action?

Angels dancing on the head of a pin.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
isukun at 7:37PM, Dec. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Gee, where would I get that idea?

A better solution is to increase production of domestic energy supplies, and develop alternative fuel sources over the sixty years that it gives us.

116.4 billion barrels of oil is enough to power 65 million cars for 60 years.

Where are you getting 60 years from?

I already said what the 60 years is. See PDF.

Is 65 million a reasonable estimate for the number of active vehicles in the country, after all things are considered? Maybe, but I'd say closer than 245 million.

Maybe I got that impression because it is exactly what you said and exactly what you meant and now you're just backpedaling. Considering the quote was your basis for claiming we should strive for energy independence with a focus on producing more domestic oil, it doesn't help your argument when you misread the stat. And if I'm somehow misinterpreting you, where DID you get the sixty years from? Care to enlighten me on that one, since last time all you did was point back to that quote about the 65 million “cars” as you put it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
rufus_edge at 11:15PM, Dec. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
I'd ask you what you were smoking but I already know the answer: liberalism.
I offered to stop talking about this because it's moronic, but since you really want to find out how wrong you are, I'll explain it.

American Petroleum Institute
116.4 billion barrels of oil is enough to power 65 million cars for 60 years.
This is what the 60 years is. This is all that the 60 years is. This is what the PDF says. That's why I said to look at the PDF if you want to find out why there is a reference to “60 years”. I included the quote in the very first post I made, directly after I said “sixty years that it gives us”. It means it “gives us” 60 years to power 65 million cars, as defined by API. Over those “60 years”, which do not equate to 60 years of actual time in which we do not need energy from sources other than domestic oil supplies because of countless factors that are not considered in this statistic, we can develop alternative fuels. If you don't want to take something out of context, you have to consider the very next sentence in a paragraph. I also repeatedly stated that there is much more to the issue than domestic energy supplies, including at the end of my original post. This counts as “context”.

Now let us determine what API considers to be a “car” in this statistic.

O=oil in barrels
T=time in years
C=“a car” in barrels per year
X=number of “cars”

XC=O/T

(65,000,000)C=(116,400,000,000)/(60)

C=29.84615385

A “car” is a vehicle that uses 29.84615385 barrels of oil per year.

Now let us use our friend math to find out what the number of “vehicles that use 29.84615385 barrels of oil per year” in this country is.

According to the EIA, the country uses 3,389,390,000 barrels of oil per year for motor gasoline.

Xt=the total number of “cars” in the country.

XtC=Ot/T

Xt(29.84615385)=(3389390000)

Xt=113562036

The total number of “cars” in the country is 113,562,036

Understand this?

Now let us simplify that number to 113 million, in the hopes that you won't have another conniption about another simplification.

The total number of “cars” in the country is 113 million.

Here are some facts about 113 million:
It is closer to 65 million than 245 million
It is less than “well over 250 million”
It is less than the number of registered vehicles in the country
It is less than the number of adults in the country

Now, when you repeatedly talk about your definition of a “car” when discussing a statistic that deals with a radically different definition of a “car”, should that be considered taking it out of context, considering that they have nothing the fuck to do with each other?
I'll answer it for you: yes it does. It also means you're a complete lunatic.

Hence:
rufus_edge
You're the one who is taking things out of context.

Things that people said that were correct in accordance with this context:
rufus_edge
Is 65 million a reasonable estimate for the number of active vehicles in the country, after all things are considered? Maybe, but I'd say closer than 245 million.

I did say that the 65 million “cars” is probably closer to the total number of “cars” in the country than 250 million.

A car is not a “car”.

It's extraordinarily clear that your definition of “car” as “registered vehicle that isn't rotting in a garage” isn't even close to API's definition of “car”.

The number of registered vehicles in the country doesn't mean anything.

A person that owns fourteen cars isn't going to use fourteen times as much gas as a person that owns one car.
Things that people said that were blatantly wrong, stupid, and out of context:
isukun
Even if you go with this 116.4 billion barrels number, you still have 135 million cars and 110 million trucks/SUVs. That's not even counting commercial class vehicles or motorcycles.

Actually, according to the Department of Transportation, there were over 250 million passenger class (that would be vehicles of two axles or less) vehicles registered in the US in 2006. Somehow I doubt that number has gone down to 65 million in two years. Also consider that there are a lot of people out there who have more than one car that fit different purposes. One for driving to work, one for toting around the kids or groceries, one for fun, etc. It isn't uncommon for families to have two or more cars. You also have a lot of corporate vehicles out there, things like utility vans, pickup trucks used by construction or landscaping companies, mail or delivery vehicles, rental vehicles, and so forth. These are cars that see everyday use in addition to those used by the drivers to get to and from the office/depot. Quite often, your corporate vehicles will see MORE use than your average consumer vehicle. Not every car in America is owned by an individual and it is possible for one person to have or use multiple “active” cars.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, you just seem to be happy to ignore the majority of cars out there. The number of adults in this country doesn't matter. That doesn't determine how many active cars there are out there. How many taxi cabs are out there? delivery trucks/vans? rental cars? corporate vehicles? utility or fleet vans? construction and landscaping trucks? Those all COUNT. They are active vehicles that in most cases use even MORE gas than cars that people use to drive to and from work every day.

Also, going by the Census Bureau there are about 150 million people employed in the US. 77% of those people drive to work alone. That's 115.5 million active cars right there. Of the remainder, an additional 11% carpool. Gooing by the high estimate of the average carpool size that's another 3.5 million. So, just commuters are almost twice the number of cars on the road as you've been claiming.

Your number of “cars” is well over 250 million, and mine was “a number closer to 65 million than 245 million”.
113 is closer to 65 million than 245 million. In fact, it is much closer to 65 million than 245 million. It is closer to “a number closer to 65 million than 245 million” than “a number well over 250 million”.

You're not going to admit that you were wrong about either misinterpreting what the hell I was talking about or being horribly wrong about what a “car” is. I've seen you be blatantly wrong before, in discussions with bravo1102 about what the definition of “marriage” is, among others. You never admit you're wrong, and you never shut the hell up. This doesn't make someone a man or a good debater. Since you don't live inside my head, you could never have a better understanding than me in regards to what I mean or why I say things. Therefore, you can never, ever win that part of the argument. This isn't a big deal. Your problem is with a few words that I didn't think anyone would be moronic enough to misinterpret or obsess about. If you want to do something productive, shut up and move on. I gave you a chance to do that before I made this post.

Also, your name sounds like “I suck one”. I'm just throwing that out there. You can interpret it however you want, get upset about it, and bitch about it until the day you die.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
isukun at 7:23AM, Dec. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I'd ask you what you were smoking but I already know the answer: liberalism.

Funny, considering I'm not a liberal, but then I guess nyone who doesn't agree with you MUST be completely to the left.

This is what the 60 years is. This is all that the 60 years is. This is what the PDF says. That's why I said to look at the PDF if you want to find out why there is a reference to “60 years”.

Exactly, and that is the problem. Lets look at the full quote of what you said:

Reliance on foreign oil is a huge problem. Everybody has understood this for decades. Why do you think we bought Alaska? Why does every president promise energy independence?

A better solution is to increase production of domestic energy supplies, and develop alternative fuel sources over the sixty years that it gives us.

In what way does that not read “as an alternative to using foreign oil, we should increase production of domestic oil which will give us a 60 year window to develop alternative fuels”?

The total number of “cars” in the country is 113,562,036

Understand this?

Except you can't really mix those numbers. After all, the API numbers are inflated to err on the side of excess. Their numbers put you around 2.5 gallons of gas per day, while the EIA's put you around 1.5. Factoring that in, if you go by the EIA's numbers, you're back to 190 million, which is around where I would estimate the number of “active vehicles” (in quotes because it is the term YOU used to describe “cars” earlier on) actually is. So, all you're proving here is that API gives an arbitrary value to fuel consumption rather than using a real world one.

Still, that is beside the point. It still doesn't change the fact that this does not add up to 60 years of energy independence, no matter how you look at it. That was my original point, one you seem to have missed all along.

Edit:

Oh, and there's a problem with your math, too. API specifically states 116.4 billion barrels of oil. According to the EIA, the 3,389,390,000 number you pulled up is gasoline. Last time I checked the conversion rate from oil to gasoline wasn't 1:1. A 42 gallon barrel of oil only makes about 19.5 gallons of gasoline. So, your equation should actually be: Xt(29.84615385)=3389390000(42/19.5)

Not surprisingly (to me anyway) Xt=244,595,154.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
ozoneocean at 11:52PM, Dec. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,802
joined: 1-2-2006
Deleted comment from Roof.
-Roof, that sort of thing is fine in the WTH form but not debate and discussion. If Isukun is arguing too well for you, move on to another point, no need for such behaviour in this forum.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
bravo1102 at 5:01AM, Dec. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,230
joined: 1-21-2008
There are a few holes in the absolute numbers.
1. There are a lot of registered and unregistered vehicles in the USA that are not driven adding to the 113 million number.
2. No number should ever be absolute because there are too many variables among 0ver 100 million examples. The number could be between 113 and 200 million. Not everyone uses the exact same amount of gas so the statistic of 113 million may be an under estimate or even an over estimate based on the mileage. (e.g. My wife drives twice the mileage I do every year, so using some algebraic statistics one could estimate the number of cars owned by my wife and I as three not the actual two, thereby inflating the number of cars)

Therefore it should be looked at as an estimate. The useage of gasoline should be based on how many miles are driven, not the number of cars as the mileage driven varies too much from vehicle to vehicle and is the real indicator of how much fuel is used.

Also the miles driven and cars in existence if more closely attached to population growth which as always is exponential. We might be seeing a Malthusian Crisis for fuel useage. Just a thought.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
kingofsnake at 8:01AM, Dec. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
SpANG
Have you noticed there is hardly any talk about alternative fuel anymore?

No. I've noticed the opposite. I've noticed that that's all Barak Obama talks about. How do we fix the economy? Health Insurance and alternative fuels. Thats what he's said in like every ‘radio’ address.

You're basing your theory on some conjecture that is provably false.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
rufus_edge at 9:41AM, Dec. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
In this context, the total number of “cars” in the country is 113 million. Anything else is out of context.
It's clearly meant to be a generalized definition and not an “absolute number”.
There will never be a true definition of a car in terms of oil/year because every car is different.

There are 113 million of API's “cars” in the country.
If you think that number should be well over 250 million or even anything other than 113 million, you're blatantly wrong, taking things out of context, and you don't understand math.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
bravo1102 at 10:47AM, Dec. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,230
joined: 1-21-2008
I understand statistics and how the formulas are created and the numbers crunched. And there is a lot of wiggle room in those “absolute” numbers. API's numbers are one estimate based on a mathematical formula based on statistics. I learned from the whole “More Guns, less crime” debate that statistics can often say whatever you want them to.

Does the number of cars really matter or is it just a red herring to distract from numbers we do know and can accurately measure without resorting to statistical formulas. We know the absolute amount of fuel used and have estimates of how much production can be increased and how that would impact the supply. Drilling off California would actually help the enviornment as seeping petroleum causes more damage over time than any man made oil spill. But anything nature does is good, anything man does is bad. :)

We also know that sugarcane and sugarbeet based ethanol (E85 especially) is much more effcient than corn based and is something we can do now. (And in fact is already being done overseas) Mandating China and India use E85 like Brazil would go a lot farther towards solving the problem than anything the USA can do by itself. We have 260 million people, they have over two billion and they're buying cars at an astonishing rate and will have a lot more than our paltry 113 million (to use one estimate) in a few years.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
imshard at 10:51AM, Dec. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Or we could forget the whole thing, and just switch over to vehicles that don't need liquid fuel. Which is (despite common mis-conception), a very viable very doable alternative.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
rufus_edge at 1:03PM, Dec. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 131
joined: 10-25-2007
In regards to the actual issue, and not just a person thinking that two different things are the same, I agree with bravo1102 and imshard.

Drilling isn't going to hurt the environment, not even in ANWR. Corn-based ethanol subsidies need to stop immediately, because they result in more harm than good. Sugar beet-based ethanol is something that can be done in this country now. Worldwide demand for fuel is undoubtedly going to grow in the future. Cars that don't use liquid fuel are possible in the future, and it may even be the solution that ends up making the most economic sense; but it's going to require plenty of new nuclear power, unless you have a better solution. I've already said these things.

Producing domestic energy supplies from the coasts, ANWR, oil shale, CTL, tar sands, nuclear power, and others is going to take a huge amount of work, but it will decrease the price of gas as opposed to not doing it, it will create thousands of new jobs, it will generate trillions of dollars in government revenue, it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it will help our country for a tremendously long time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
isukun at 9:19PM, Dec. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
It's clearly meant to be a generalized definition and not an “absolute number”.

Tell that to yourself. YOU were the one who brought up population. YOU were the one who claimed people can't drive two vehicles at once (which still has no bearing on a person's ability to have two active vehicles, even by API's standards). YOU were the one who made snide comments about the “25 million American children who drive themselves to work”. These would have been moot points if you believed they were talking simply in terms of fuel consumption and not in terms of physical vehicles.

Another problem with the argument was your insistence on focusing on the number of vehicles rather than the time it gave us. You could have simply stated early on that the number of vehicles was not an issue and that the numbers simply represented a fraction of what the country really requires, but you never did. That is why I said you were misinterpreting their numbers. I've also gone back and corrected your math.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
kingofsnake at 5:18AM, Dec. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
rufus_edge
Isuckone

What are you six? Grow up dude. If you can't argue like a big boy go do something else.

Can we get a moderator get this back on track?

isukun/rufus argument theater is fun and all but this is this is no longer either a debate or a discussion.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
Hawk at 9:12AM, Dec. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
I agree. We need to end this.

I do my fair share of disagreeing with isukun in the videogames thread, but he always keeps it civil and never stoops to something like that. If this were the first incident I wouldn't lock the thread, but now I'm sure we'd end up back at this point if I didn't.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved