[Cog]

The amount of energy used to extract oil is trivial in comparison to the energy gained. Cost/Benefit is the only thing that matter when drilling for oil.

[KaiserJeep]

Yes, and back around 1900, you got back 30 barrels or so when you invested one barrel of energy. Today an average conventional well averages less than 5 barrels, and the tar sands less than 3. The trend lines are not good. But if you've hung around here for a while, you know that. When the numbers get down below 2 barrels, we either have to use better extraction tech, or cap it off. When that happens to the average well, the age of oil has effectively ended.

[vtsnowedin]

I have decided to indulge her and allow her to get whatever she wants, including another Jeep. .

I read that and after I got the beer that shot out my nose cleaned up I read the whole post to my wife to show her that I was not the only husband with occasional illusions of being in charge. You and I both like sleeping indoors and know that the pedestrian has the right of way and the man is the King of his castle and both get along just fine if they don't try to prove it.
Enjoy your new SUV.

[Newfie]

VT,
Spot on!

[KaiserJeep]

Of course I take care to work on the marriage. But I am retired and she is still working, so she gets privileges to go with earned income.

[vtsnowedin]

Of course I take care to work on the marriage. But I am retired and she is still working, so she gets privileges to go with earned income.

You still don't get the two income dynamic. What she earns is HERs and what you earn is OURS. She may let you think otherwise to stroke your ego but if you try to spend any of HERS your way she will fetch you up short with a pair of vise grips clamped onto somewhere very sensitive like the partition between your nostrils.

[KaiserJeep]

Nope. Equal partnership, never any other way for 42 years. I earned more, she has worked longer, but we remain equal partners. She did allow me to buy a couple of Italian sports cars and a '67 Kaiser Jeep, not to mention a new Wrangler Rubicon. If she buys another Jeep, it'll be her third new one.

[Outcast_Searcher]

We have been greening our work force - hiring younger/cheaper engineers. At least half of these 20 somethings don't even own cars. They think driving is stupid and especially the cost of owning. They would rather spend it at whole foods.

Well, if they live someplace where that makes economic sense, then good for them.

I know when I seriously considered moving to D.C. for work, I wouldn't have wanted a car there. Driving and parking were both expensive nightmares in that place. (I was middle aged at the time, but it would have been a purely stress/practicality decision.)

On the other hand, in a rural area, living without a car would be, let us say, severely limiting for the vast majority of people.

Small cities like mine have an inefficient nightmare for public transport (our government at work). Given that and the cost of cabs, although friends with 20-something kids are telling me a lot more kids are electing not to drive -- I wonder how much money they're really saving (if any) if they're Ubering all over the place, vs. say, driving a used Corolla. (If self driving cars become wildly successful, then the cost of riding in, say, an Uber car should drop dramatically and change that equation).

The data seems to be something like 15ish% of 20-somethings are choosing not to drive, vs in 1983, per the Atlantic. That's a LONG way from "over half", but certainly not a nontrivial number.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... se/425169/

Among young adults, the declines are smaller but still significant—16.4 percent fewer 20-to-24-year-olds had licenses in 2014 than in 1983, 11 percent fewer 25-to-29-year-olds, 10.3 percent fewer 30-to-34-year-olds, and 7.4 percent fewer 35-to-39-year-olds.

[AdamB]

Adam you have absolutely no insight into the the state of the oil plays we are now forced to resign ourselves to.

Really?

Contrast the Fracking or hydraulic fracturing to get oil and gas http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fracking.asp) to the gushing oil geysers that just flowed prodigiously outward. Look how deep we now mine to get the oil, or where we go -far off and inaccessible places like the deep oceans and polar regions. All this translates to much more energy to extract the oil leaving less net energy for the rest of the Economy. This is plainly clear and factually indisputable

I can do far more than contrast. But that would require me to prove how wrong you are in your first statement, and I won't do that.

[AdamB]

The amount of energy used to extract oil is trivial in comparison to the energy gained. Cost/Benefit is the only thing that matter when drilling for oil.

Measured in economic terms no less. But the instant an ETPer discusses value differences in BTUs, their entire idea just goes right out the window. I'm not sure they are smart enough to know that, but they might be, and that would explain why they can't discuss it. Or they just aren't smart enough to understand the differences in BTU value, even though they probably pay more for one BTU over another. Can't have reality interfering with the next simplistic idea.

[Cog]

I've been around doomers a very long time. Even considered myself one. Its the end state that drives the facts they will receive and those that they reject. They view the world ending in some sort of Mad Max future where billions die, pretty much instantly. Everything stops. Now it doesn't matter which facts counteract that scenario. Those are inconvenient facts and can be disregarded. That is why the doomers who thought the high price of oil would lead to collapse have no problem adopting the idea that low price of oil will lead to collapse. Everything they choose to observe leads to the same end state, that being collapse. There are no other possibilities for a doomer.

This does not mean that is all is right with the world. We do have to deal with the fact that oil is not infinite and transition away from it. My solution is to let price do that and it will in time.

[Subjectivist]

We have been greening our work force - hiring younger/cheaper engineers. At least half of these 20 somethings don't even own cars. They think driving is stupid and especially the cost of owning. They would rather spend it at whole foods.

Well, if they live someplace where that makes economic sense, then good for them.

I know when I seriously considered moving to D.C. for work, I wouldn't have wanted a car there. Driving and parking were both expensive nightmares in that place. (I was middle aged at the time, but it would have been a purely stress/practicality decision.)

On the other hand, in a rural area, living without a car would be, let us say, severely limiting for the vast majority of people.

Small cities like mine have an inefficient nightmare for public transport (our government at work). Given that and the cost of cabs, although friends with 20-something kids are telling me a lot more kids are electing not to drive -- I wonder how much money they're really saving (if any) if they're Ubering all over the place, vs. say, driving a used Corolla. (If self driving cars become wildly successful, then the cost of riding in, say, an Uber car should drop dramatically and change that equation).

The data seems to be something like 15ish% of 20-somethings are choosing not to drive, vs in 1983, per the Atlantic. That's a LONG way from "over half", but certainly not a nontrivial number.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... se/425169/

Among young adults, the declines are smaller but still significant—16.4 percent fewer 20-to-24-year-olds had licenses in 2014 than in 1983, 11 percent fewer 25-to-29-year-olds, 10.3 percent fewer 30-to-34-year-olds, and 7.4 percent fewer 35-to-39-year-olds.

When I visited D.C. As a tourist a few years ago I was very impressed with the Metro rail system. If Toledo had a system like that I wouldn't need a car either.

[Outcast_Searcher]

When I visited D.C. As a tourist a few years ago I was very impressed with the Metro rail system. If Toledo had a system like that I wouldn't need a car either.

Yes. It's the "car traffic/parking VERY BAD" coupled with the "Metro (and even bus and cab (cabs very reasonably priced within certain zones)) system quite good", at least relative to the typical big city, that quickly put me in the "I wouldn't have a car if I lived here" camp.

The metro system even seemed SAFE with all the cops manning the stations, unlike in places like Philly, for example.

[AdamB]

We do have to deal with the fact that oil is not infinite and transition away from it. My solution is to let price do that and it will in time.

Do you allow for the possibility that as people view it differently (cigarettes being the operative example of the same thing, from a product going from being "good" to "bad"), price won't be nearly as important as the attitudes our young have towards using it? My wife won't eat certain kinds of tuna because of who does fishing with what nets or whatnot, my daughter is vegan because of her objection to the treatment of animal protein, prior to it becoming just protein, and oil use in cars appears appears to be happening to more than a few I know. They are now driving EVs, or bicycles, the light rail that was installed nearby a year or two back has become the eco-friendly transport of choice, and as I watch folks transition from the old ways of doing things, ditching their cars and fossil fuel use is just one of those things.

[AdamB]

When I visited D.C. As a tourist a few years ago I was very impressed with the Metro rail system. If Toledo had a system like that I wouldn't need a car either.

I visit DC on occasion, and don't ever use a car. Get a hotel as far out towards the end of the Metro as possible, park the car, and never turn it back on again while I am in town. There just isn't any point.

[Cog]

We do have to deal with the fact that oil is not infinite and transition away from it. My solution is to let price do that and it will in time.

Do you allow for the possibility that as people view it differently (cigarettes being the operative example of the same thing, from a product going from being "good" to "bad"), price won't be nearly as important as the attitudes our young have towards using it? My wife won't eat certain kinds of tuna because of who does fishing with what nets or whatnot, my daughter is vegan because of her objection to the treatment of animal protein, prior to it becoming just protein, and oil use in cars appears appears to be happening to more than a few I know. They are now driving EVs, or bicycles, the light rail that was installed nearby a year or two back has become the eco-friendly transport of choice, and as I watch folks transition from the old ways of doing things, ditching their cars and fossil fuel use is just one of those things.

To a point. The younger generation doesn't have the car culture thinking that those who are in their 50's and 60's had. If they can save some money, feel safe, and get where they are going they are fine with the options you mentioned. There will always be the convenience factor which comes into play when you are considering going from point A to point B. Maybe outfits like Uber or self-driving Uber's that I could order from my house, to take me somewhere and then take me back home would be a great option. I wouldn't need a permanent car in that case.

[sparky]

.
I'm not sure if this is relevant but city driving speed and public parking size have shrunk to the point where a smaller car make plenty of sense , there is less small country folks and more city dwellers now .

[evilgenius]

The looming death of Sears, JCPenny, Macy's and no talk of how much internet shopping has changed demand for gasoline? People aren't going shopping as much as they used to. They are looking stuff up on the net. It used to be that even when they shopped online they went to the stores, but the stores have gotten more clever at not stocking exactly what you see online. Also, there has been a greater development of comments concerning products for sale online. Online retailers actually encourage that, even if the reviews are bad, because the mere presence of reviews gives people confidence, and if people leave the site they may not come back. There is a lot of competition.

Unrelated to that, car insurance is going up. My insurance just rose almost a hundred bucks for six months. When I saw that I called a broker friend of mine. He couldn't find me anything cheaper. He said everybody is raising their rates. He said they are citing cheaper gasoline, that it will cause people to drive more and increase their liability.

When my broker friend said that the first thing that occurred to me was that I ought to buy insurance company stock. Then I started thinking about all the other times I've seen similar things happen, and they did not translate into higher stock prices. There is always some hidden cost that is not so evident on the balance sheet that they can use to write down a windfall like this, unless it would boost the value of stock options, or the windfall doesn't beat analyst's expectations. The little guy never wins unless he coincidentally wants to do what the rich guy is already planning. I know I'm being cynical, but I can see that insurance companies are about to make a windfall and I am still not going to buy their stock.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Unrelated to that, car insurance is going up. My insurance just rose almost a hundred bucks for six months. When I saw that I called a broker friend of mine. He couldn't find me anything cheaper. He said everybody is raising their rates. He said they are citing cheaper gasoline, that it will cause people to drive more and increase their liability.

Interesting. Well, vehicle insurance is a competitive business (unless they're illegally colluding). So objectively, either people are driving meaningfully more miles or they're not, and time will tell. If not, unless they're colluding, such higher rates shouldn't be able to stand, unless there is some other factor at work causing more accidents or more expensive vehicle repairs.

Come to think of it, with all the technology changes in the quest for higher EPA mileage, things like using aluminum instead of steel might well be leading to higher repair costs from accidents, given that I've seen an aluminum hood just fold up (requiring replacement instead of repair) from a parking lot speed accident, for example.

...

Re car insurance cost, I've observed three things:

1). Getting a traffic ticket raises your insurance rate for years. Even one. And they can get this information from public records.

2). Calling your insurance agent can be helpful if you haven't done so in a long while. I dropped some unneeded coverage after asking a question that saved me about 50 bucks every 6 months (after observing how high my bill was getting to be). I also asked about the "over 7500 miles driven annually" clause, and when I pointed out I now only drive about 4000 miles annually, saved another 50 bucks from that. (And if you lie and have an accident and have 8,000(+) miles annually on your odometer while you're paying the low mileage rate, they have LOTS of lawyers so you might not be covered, so I wouldn't recommend that as a cost savings tool unless you actually drive little).

3). More companies want to track you via a GPS part you install in the car, and give you savings for that. To me, the 5% or so savings offered is WAY too little for me to want to put up with that intrusion (and maybe have my rate raised if I accidentally exceed the speed limit sometime when, for example, I miss some stupid sign behind a tree). But it is an option for frugal people. For me, when that savings is more like 50% and they explain the full terms of how that works (like when do they raise my rates for observed behavior), I'll consider it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The looming death of Sears, JCPenny, Macy's and no talk of how much internet shopping has changed demand for gasoline? People aren't going shopping as much as they used to. They are looking stuff up on the net. It used to be that even when they shopped online they went to the stores, but the stores have gotten more clever at not stocking exactly what you see online. Also, there has been a greater development of comments concerning products for sale online. Online retailers actually encourage that, even if the reviews are bad, because the mere presence of reviews gives people confidence, and if people leave the site they may not come back. There is a lot of competition.

Yup, re shopping, gotta love the internet. I HATED the whole mall experience. (OK, except for ogling girls, I admit it. The painful blows to my ribs from my girlfriend were testament to that ).

But surely the gas/diesel saved on a national basis from eliminating a huge proportion of the shopping trips (confirmed by the death of so many shopping malls) relative to efficient UPS or Fedex delivery routes must be gigantic, considered on a scale of the whole US (and I'd think the same thing for all of Western Europe, but can't be sure).

And the reviews are awesome. Overall, they give me more confidence about things than being able to physically handle them in a store used to. I know people love to bash capitalism, but where there is lots of competition, it really does get quite efficient at getting people what they want for low prices.