All Americans think America is on a different planet.
We know all Americans are on a different planet.
|
|
|
Washing machines in the US are bigger. I frequently get peeved wiht the size of the machines here, particularly since every time I am in SF I am faced with proper sized machines. Ditto tumble dryers, ditto refrigerators, ditto just about anything.
And now, motoring.
|
>>ditto just about anything.>>
Including, sadly, rather a lot of Americans themselves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Maybe that's why.
Bigger people need bigger cars in order to fit in, plus bigger clothes. And bigger clothes need bigger washing machines!
|
>>just heard on bbc news that some environmental activists are targetttng school runs in a part of london today to demonstrate against those drivng 4x4s.
I'm not against 4x4s as such. But to many they are a visible expression of over consumption, even if they aren't that bad really.
Most 4x4's are no longer or wider than a Mondeo, just higher, heavier and more agressive looking. Here in Britain I think its wrong to single out just 4x4s as ogres. Large executive saloons or high performance supercars are other examples of overspecified vehicles.
However, in USA the problem is on a different scale - the 4x4s are bigger, thirstier and even more 'must have'.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
Washing machines might be bigger in the States, but then so are the kitchens they sit in. It is my experience that American white goods are from a different age to the technically advanced European stuff, much like their cars. The washing machines or should I say 'tubs' are mostly top loaders for goodness sake!
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
I don't think there's a place in the real world of diminishing oil stocks and increasing pollution for any car that can't do at least 30 mpg under arduous use and 40 mpg if mollycoddled along. The Americans will have to learn this hard lesson eventually, despite the attitudes displayed in that programme.
|
do at least 30 mpg under arduous use and 40 mpg if mollycoddled along.
I sense you're not going to like the patently family collection of cars, Alan....
|
|
Perhaps not my friend - but it's the way things are going in our overcrowded world.
|
|
Mmmmm. But they make me smile after a day fending off idiotic requests.
|
At the automotive conferences I attend every year in the US there is nearly always a session that basically boils down to 'why are diesels so unpopular in the US and so popular in Europe?' usually in an emissions regulations context.
The consensus so far has always been that diesels are considered to be noisy and smelly (like they were years ago), that diesel fuel distribution country-wide is a bit ropey (acknowledged that this would be a chicken and egg thing to resolve), but mainly that there is no incentive (re fuel economy) for Americans to change their buying habits.
Some industry bods are suggesting that diesel will never really take off because fuel cell technology will be the next big thing instead.
|
Many more of us could achieve or get closer to that 30mpg target if it were not for all the unnecessary time spent stationary/at a crawl.
--
Use it up : Wear it out : Make do : Do without
|
Alan,
Sorry to burst your bubble but we have enough oil for at least 400 years at current forecasts. Most of it is in unfortunate places like Siberia but the problems of extraction are political not physical and these will be solved as the need presses. The world has not pursued this oil aggressively before as it believed Saudi Arabia to be politically stable.
Next the world is not overcrowded, the West is overcrowded whilst vast areas of the world are unpopulated. The West is currently breeding at far below replacement level and so, except for immigrants, is de-populating.
|
>>Sorry to burst your bubble but we have enough oil for at least 400 years at current forecasts. Most of it is in unfortunate places like Siberia but the problems of extraction are political not physical and these will be solved as the need presses. The world has not pursued this oil aggressively before as it believed Saudi Arabia to be politically stable.
WE do not have oil reserves in Siberia, Russia does. China, India and many other developing countries are becoming 'car economies' and will increase global consumption of oil. Oil reserves that are currently available to us may cease to be so.
It is not just the west that is 'overpopulated', there are densely populated areas all arond the globe. Likewise for sparsely populated areas, which are usually thus because no one wants to live in them or it is impossible to do so.
Even if there is still oil left in 400 years, which seems likely, it will have long since become a scarce and expensive commodity.
Cheers, SS
|
we have enough oil for at least 400 years at current forecasts.
Even if it is there, and even if it can actually be extracted at vaguely economical prices, don't assume that it can be extracted at a sufficient rate to meet even present demands. Some oil experts say that a lot of this stuff will be extractable only very slowly.
|
|
"The washing machines or should I say 'tubs' are mostly top loaders for goodness sake!"
Ummm, is there anything particularly wrong with a top loader?. Besides the fact that you can quickly add that escapee sock you found after you started the wash cycle.
One of the most frustrating moments in my life was realizing that I left my mobile in my trouser pocket after I added my clothes to a front loading washing machine and having to sit there watching it slosh about as there was no way of opening the door to quickly retrieve it. Had the washing machine been a top loader the phone could have been rescued sooner 8-).
Yes washing machines are bigger in the US and yes they use more water than European washing machines, but a big US washing machine will fit all the clothes in that you need to do in two washing cycles with a smaller European washer so where is the economy?.
I agree about the large gas guzzling SUVs though, but must point out that I don't think its a matter of Americans *wanting* to use more oil, I sincerely doubt that any of them would object if you could double or even triple the fuel economy of their Hummer 8-).
|
|
I think the point about the comparison between EU and US machines is that the latter require more water, detergent etc. for the SAME load. Put another way, they may take twice a normal EU load but require more than twice the water, powder and electricity to do the job. It's the same thing with most of their cars isn't it? Huge V8's and so on to chug along at 55mph or less. With fuel being so cheap there what, other than the evironmental aspect, is the incentive for increased efficiency?
|
Sofa,
What do you think forecasts means? They take into account possible future developments and assume for example phenomenal growth in China, which I for one don't think will be achieved.
As to who 'owns' the oil, I would refer you to Chairman Mao, 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun'. The US is currently heavily dependant on Saudi oil. If the Saudi's turned round tomorrow and said 'no more oil to US' how long do you think the House of Saud would survive? Russia is I grant you a more difficult nut to crack but where there's a will there's a way
NW,
The extraction characteristics of any oil field are entirely unique to itself. Some have to be sucked slowly to avoid damaging the reservoir and therefore the recoverability factor for the field, others just gush out. To make a statement about the recovery rate of all oil fields in the world is nonsense.
|
>>Russia is I grant you a more difficult nut to crack>>
Well the Americans have done it at least once, ending the Cold War through economic pressures on the Russians, such as the Kremlin having to keep up with developments such as space exploitation and Star Wars and continual new technology for aircraft, weapons etc.
Interestingly enough the Americans never stopped its massive supply of wheat to Russia...:-)
Re the oil levels. I remember a couple of years ago it was conseratively estimated that there were at least 100 years' supply still around but, I'm pretty sure, something else will have been found to replace oil within a comparatively short period.
Might just not be in my lifetime, but technology races ahead at such a trememdous pace these days anything is possible.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Doesn't the USA have vast offshore oil reserves off the California coast?
Re: global oil reserves. If the oil is there and economically extractable, then it makes sense to use it. If bio-diesel production is gradually stepped up to allow an ever increasing percentage blend with oil-well diesel, then there is hope of a seemless adaption to sustainable transport. Increased efficiency of engines and hybrids with electric auxilary power should make each gallon go further too.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
Number of years supply of oil over the decades. In each case, the figures are the total known oil reserves divided by the annual consumption at that time (pre 1944, US reserves only, post 1944, world reserves):
1920 - 10
1930 - 8
1940 - 8
1950 - 20
1960 - 38
1970 - 35
1980 - 30
1990 - 45
2000 - 40
V
|
Vin - I accuse you of that most henious of crimes. That of:
"letting the facts get in the way of a good argument"
|
Just found this statistic - OK, so it was on a Friends of the Earth site, but the article was promoting the benefits of biodiesel not bashing cars!
"BP has recently estimated that there are some 1.15 trillion barrels, equivalent to 40 years' worth, of oil left in the world"
This ties in with the table of statistics posted above.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
"BP has recently estimated that there are some 1.15 trillion barrels, equivalent to 40 years' worth, of oil left in the world"
they've been saying that for the last 40 years at least!
|
>>they've been saying that for the last 40 years at least!
At some stage they will be in a position of having cried 'wolf'!
...But when? That's the big question.
Cheers, SS
|
There are only 7 days of food in the Vin family larder. That doesn't mean that in 7 days I will go hungry. No, it means that in about 3 days or so I'll start looking for more food. No matter how hard it gets, I have a pretty inexhaustible demand for food. Even if Tesco runs out, I will keep looking, perhaps trying Sainsburys or even Waitrose. If the search gets truly desperate I might well start looking at the kind of stuff that Ray Mears eats. Whatever, short of total world collapse of food supplies I will get back to about 7 days or so of supply.
Same with oil. I think you'll find that BP et al are talking about known, easily recoverable oil. If supplies get low, price will go up and currently uneconomic oil will be suddenly classed as viable reserves. Same thing as my food, really.
V
|
"they've been saying that for the last 40 years at least!"
they have been right so far then havent they!
|
|
|
|
|
