Gas Conservation: Not For Pro Jocks

mic...Why?

Just because they can afford it?

Next, you'll be trying to tell them what kind of house they can buy or how many kids they can have.

Good for them. They are living the American dream.

So the American Dream includes individual grossly disproportionate use of limited natural resources?

Far out.

Hardly, Orlando.

What they (a few wealthy athletes) use in gas is MONUMENTALLY INSIGNIFICANT to what the federal government/local governments WASTES/WASTE every hour.

How about traffic jams every morning and afternoon around the major cities?

How about truckers on some of the national highways talking on their cb's while driving in both lanes of the highway in the mountains with miles and miles of cars backed up behind them?

I'm happy for pro athletes just as I am happy for many who were fortunate to achieved success in business or the movies or in the music business.

Do your part, Orlando. Live without air conditioning in Florida during the summer.

I agree, anyone living in a house with extra bedrooms should immediately sell or at least seal off those rooms(and any other rooms that that are not essential). Especially here in Florida where our
electric power comes from companies that burn fuel for energy.

Just a few miles down the road there's Tiger Woods, Shaquille O'Neal, Johnny Damon, Mark O'Meara,
Stewart Appleby, among others, all living in 10,000-20,000 sq ft homes. Just think of the fuel we
could save if they all bought smaller homes like the rest of us. Talk about grossly disproportionate use of limited natural resources. These people don't even live here full time but the airconditioning
still runs full time so mildew and mold do not build up. Imagine the fuel it takes to AC a 15,000 sq
ft home with 15 to 20 foot ceilings. And there are millions of Americans across the country-not just
athletes with homes that large that could certainly do with less-although a lot get their power from
hydro-electric power and coal. What are these people thinking?

Hey, it looks like we are having fun here so I will argue anecdotally as well.

During the energy crisis in Ca a few years ago, Barbara Streisand was advocating that everyone in California should hang out their laundry to dry until it was pointed out that she had about four drying machines running up there in her beautiful Malibu mansion. I say let the free market decide these issues. If gas becomes too expensive, alternatives will be developed and people can choose to conserve as necessary.

Another good one was when Martin Sheen said homeless people were welcome to stay in his plush California community. When they started showing up in droves, it wasn't such a good idea anymore as Martin found many of his neighbors growing angry at him. Talk is very cheap.

I'm not one to applaud conspicuous consumption, whatever the source...government or "the cool kids". But that's just me.

And why does a call for moderation ever deserve the "yeah, well, you do without at all then" response? I mean, over the age of about 12.

Few young baseball players need these enormous SUVs. They drive them because its cool and because they are often PAID to drive them. They--or often their business agents-- chose cars like they chose their batting gloves or shoes... for reasons of Marketing!

Virtually every jock at our HS drives or wants to drive similar cars. Beyond that are the non-jocks who want to look cool, too.

This is about the LOOK, the FAD. For most 22-year old jocks there is little inherently beneficial in driving a car the size of a Greyhound. Analogies to large homes or air conditioning are misplaced. Substituting a nice 18-mpg Lexus sedan for that Hummer won't cramp many lifestyles. Indeed a few jocks prefer riding a motorcycle.

This has nothing to do with wealth. It has to do with setting an image, being a role model.

quote:

For most 22-year old jocks there is little inherently beneficial in driving a car the size of a Greyhound.

micdsguy - when you have to exagerate like that, you diminish whatever point you attempted to make -

in case you weren't exagerating, I'd have to agree with ya and lay down the law with my kids - no greyhound size vehicles

we have pro jocks here (K Winslow) who are forbidden by their contract to ride motorcycles, as if that meant anything anyway - I think that motorcycle cost him about a million $$ per mile


ha, I can envision my kid in that lexus,
the trunk full of bb stuff, w/fishing stuff sticking out the back windows, and a stinger of catfish on the pasenger seat, also stuck in the mud up to the axels (what would that be, 3"-4" deep mud??)

This is AMERICA folks!

If a person wants to drive a Hummer and can afford to buy the gas...so be it! Good for them I say!

To suggest that they shouldn't be allowed is socialist and smacks of jealously....
"I can't afford to so you shouldn't be allowed to..."

How 10-year-old kid is that thinking?

If you don't believe in SUV's or choose to save money on a car and gas...great...that is your right as an AMERICAN!

Just as it is my right to drive a gas-guzzling, road-hogging, mud-slinging SUV...

Deal with it or move to France!

quote:

Indeed a few jocks prefer riding a motorcycle.

I've seen at least three Cardinal players leaving games on motorcycles in recent years. Mike Matheny, last year, for one. Kent Mercker a few years ago.

Yep those big SUV's are great for hauling catfish or road kill 'gators. I was thinking of more urban uses...like going to a library.

You got me on "SUV's as big as Greyhounds." That was a figure of speech.

mic -

quote:

I was thinking of more urban uses...

he's in midtown Atlanta - - cultural differences, maybe??





I'm surprised at Matheney, I thought he wasn't even allowed to handle sharp objects

Do I have anyones permission to pick this baby up?



Corn Binder

I drive at least 150 miles each day. My minivan gets 21.9 miles per gallon. I see plenty of huge SUVs out there. No big deal. people can drive what they want to drive. It isn't just the athletes that are driving those vehicles.

quote:

I agree, anyone living in a house with extra bedrooms should immediately sell or at least seal off those rooms(and any other rooms that that are not essential). Especially here in Florida where our
electric power comes from companies that burn fuel for energy.

Just a few miles down the road there's Tiger Woods, Shaquille O'Neal, Johnny Damon, Mark O'Meara,
Stewart Appleby, among others, all living in 10,000-20,000 sq ft homes. Just think of the fuel we
could save if they all bought smaller homes like the rest of us.

How about this instead: The building code should require every house over 2,000 sq. ft. to have a PV system to generate enough electricity from sunshine to air condition all that extra space. That way people can build houses big enough for their egos and the rest of us don't have to live through blackouts because people living the "American Dream" are using up so much of our resources that there's not enough to go around.

Or maybe that's just too simple...

uh pdog, sorry to throw the cold water of reality on your proposition, but the cost of the solar electric system is greater than the value of the electricty it produces.

Which in effect means that you would be consuming MORE resources by doing what you suggest!

Dad04, go for it

that baby also has the latest IH diesel

"the Green Diesel Technology® engine in 2001 became the first technology certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board as achieving the virtually zero levels of hydrocarbon and particulate matter emissions (soot) that will be required under the stricter federal standards"

it will soon become the new "earth-mom" vehicle of choice

Anyone remember this baby? Did you ever see the massive quads Fred had? These are perfect for athletes and I think we ought to look into it.

Just turn car pool lanes into standard lanes and you'd reduce gas use and pollution by having more cars moving instead of idling. It wouldn't be politically correct but it would work.

Around here the players so called "gas guzzlers" sit in the stadium lot for as many as 10 days at a clip while they are on road trips.

While they are at home they are in the vicinity so again not big thing here

Ain't yall's son's athletes?

quote:

Ain't yall's son's athletes?

Good Point. This isn't a bunch likely to be outraged at much that baseballers do.

You aren't going to see many politicians in their Suburbans this week. Unlike ball players, you can fire a legislator for tasteless behavior.

Just an FYI and an IMO,

Conservation technology and usage certainly doesnt hurt - and has improved dramatically in the US. From home insulation to automobiles and just about everything else in between. Just fact.

Oil consumption in the US is NOT rising dramatically. Primary stress on oil has come from the rapid development in China. It will correct itself.
Much of the increase in the price of oil is coming from hedge funds - using borrowed money - to drive the price of oil through the roof. They are borderline criminals IMO. They are also simultaneously keeping a lid on equities - primarily through heavy "shorting" of stocks - and in many cases "naked shorting" which is illegal. (NS is basically selling shares that do not exist) You will see more and more hedge funds exposed as we go into 2006 by the SEC.
Hopefully the operators/owners of these funds will be sent to jail - where they belong.

Gas - The issue is not oil. It is lack of refining capacity in the US. Why? Because for the last 20 years - the environmentalist lobby and other assorted lunatics have squelched the development of refineries in the US.

Perhaps any anger should be directed at those who have fought against refinery development the last two decades.

IMO.

quote:

uh pdog, sorry to throw the cold water of reality on your proposition, but the cost of the solar electric system is greater than the value of the electricty it produces.

Dude: who's been feeding you that BS? I've actually studied the topic extensively (for my job) and the time it takes for a PV system to pay for itself varies from 6 to 12 years, depending on the local cost of electricity. After that, it's all gravy financially. The time a PV system takes to generate more electricity than it took to build it is less than 2 years now. So whether you're talking about "cost" in terms of money or electricity, you're wrong either way.

And I'm sincerely curious - who fed you that propaganda?

P-Dog:
Six to twelve year payback is only after the various subsidies state and local gov'ts are giving. That doesn't count. You have to exclude the subsidy to have an honest analysis of the cost effectiveness of PV.

Also - 6-12 year breakeven is actually a pretty piss-poor return on investment. You don't see many businesses jumping at such opportunities.

There are many places to find research of cost effectiveness of PV. Here's one:

PV is not yet cost effective. Will it eventually be? Maybe and I hope so. But in the meantime, mandating that houses install the systems is a stupid public policy.

If it is cost effective you wouldn't need to mandate it!

D'oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rob, your source was absolutely correct when it was written -30 years ago! The cost of PV has historically declined 20% with every 100% increase in production. My figures are amortized at 6%; again, everything after that is gravy.

P-Dog,

The free market system is the best judge of economics. As long as we keep the socialists idiots out of the equation, resources will flow to the highest and best use.

So far - no go on the PV.

Itsinthegame:

Right on the money. If PV makes economic sense, why subsidize it? People will do it on their own. And certainly there will be no reason to mandate it, as pdog suggests.

(Methinks maybe pdog in the business of marketing or manufacturing PV systems. He did after all say he has studied the issue extensively "for his job.")

Hey if I was selling a product I'd want the government to mandate everybody had one too!

pdog: what do you mean your figures are "amortized at 6%"? That makes no sense. Debt gets amortized. Capital expenditures get depreciated. Are you saying that a PV capital expenditure is depreciated at 6% per year? So what? All that means is it has a 16 year life in accounting terms.

Which says nothing about its return. You say "everything after that is gravy."

After what? After a "6% amortization"? That makes no sense.

It is pretty clear you have little idea what you are talking about.

My view on this is, IF YOU EARNED THE MONEY,SPEND IT AS YOU PLEASE! Sure SUV's take up lots of gas, but we dont need to conserve gas, we have over 150 years worth of Oil underneath American soil. It just so happens 90% of American oil wells are capped, my family has one in Louisiana, the government WONT LET US tap it. So the gas conservation is pointless, we already have alternate cars that use hydrogen fuel cells that are both safe and easy to produce and the only bi-product is good ol' water. They only problem with them, is the gas stations dont want to pay to upgrade their systems to distribute hydrogen until the hydrogen cars are seriosuly being marketed. So if you REALLY want to conserve fuel, go complain to the government,the car manufacturers and the Gas station owners. Leave the pro athletes alone, they pay the same $3 a gallon you are

$3.00 per gallon of gas! Where?

A related [non-baseball] topic would be cost-benefit of new house windows vs price of oil.

At what point does price for a barrel of oil must be before the decision to buy [good-better[best] new windows (for the home) becomes a break even.

Let's assume 25 windows, NE house, heating/AC bills ~ $ month.

Example: New (best) windows at $1,500 per, reduces heating/AC bill 50%. Is break even point) savings of HVAC costs per cost of windows) = 5 yrs? 10 yrs? 20 yrs?

Bear...

Spiked up for a couple of days and now down BELOW $3 in Southwest suburban Chicagoland.

I saw $3.19 here yesterday, and the refineries are in our freaking back yard!

quote:

Originally posted by Glove Man:
I saw $3.19 here yesterday, and the refineries are in our freaking back yard!

Glove Man, my kid was asked to play for the 8th Grade team in a tournament 62 miles away. Finally, I found gas for $3.19 and I jumped on it! We made national news when a truck stop here in Troy put their gas at close to $4. TALK ABOUT PRICE GOUGING!

Uh, Rob - you amortize the cost of your investment based on an assumed rate of return on that money to determine its actual value as an income-stream generating investment. PV generates a stream of "income" - the money you're not sending to the electric company every month. Let me make this real simple: If you take out a loan at 6%, amortized over a 10 year period, to pay for a PV system, you will have a little more money in your pocket every month after paying your loan payment + your electric bill, vs. not installing PV and just paying your (higher) electric bill, every year for the next 10 years. Starting the first month of the 11th year, you have a lot of money left in your pocket. Got it now?

Look - here in California we mandate dual pane windows, a minimum amount of insulation in walls and ceilings, energy efficient appliances, low-flow shower heads, water efficient toilets, etc. etc. etc. It's based on the concept that when you waste finite resources you're not just spending your own money, you're wasting resources that your neighbors need now, and your your children or grandchildren might need someday, subjecting your neighbors to blackouts and water shortages, etc. If you feel you need an 8,000 sq. ft. house to contain your ego, I don't want to be sitting in the dark next summer because the excess demand required to air condition your 8th (unused) bedroom exceeds the system's capacity and we have a blackout. So go ahead and build your McMansion - but generate the electricity needed by the extra 5,000 sq. ft on site, and leave me out of it, OK?

And I have no connection to the PV industry.

Gas stations made so much money with skyrocketing prices in the early 70s...that tons of them (mostly small family-owned outfits) closed down within a few years.