Forecast: oil prices to hit 70$ per barrel border

[Surfrider]

Nuclear is the way to go I think, but we are so far away from anything like that here. I am afraid we will dick around until it's too late. There is a chance oil could be used up one day............

That is absolutely correct.  Nuclear is cleaner and more efficient than most everything else.  Too bad the left killed the development of nuclear plants in the 80s.  Now we are behind.  Furthermore, the government does not allow plants to reuse spent fuel which makes us have to find a place to store it.  I think nuclear is the way to go for places like the US, however, I dont believe it is the place to go in other countries because they dont have the regulation and quality controls to make sure that it is safe.

[SLCPUNK]

Nuclear is the way to go I think, but we are so far away from anything like that here. I am afraid we will dick around until it's too late. There is a chance oil could be used up one day............

Too bad the left killed the development of nuclear plants in the 80s. 

LOL, how so?

[Surfrider]

Nuclear is the way to go I think, but we are so far away from anything like that here. I am afraid we will dick around until it's too late. There is a chance oil could be used up one day............

Too bad the left killed the development of nuclear plants in the 80s.?

LOL, how so?

I do not know what the LOL is for??  It is a pretty much common knowledge.  During the 80's the left protested and had a campaign that led people to believe that Chenobyl would be the rule rather than the exception.  It was a campaign based on fear that misled the public.  It still exists among the left whenever nuclear power is brought up.  Believe me, my father works in the industry and he is bombarded by questions about it all of the time.  I was actually surprised to see some here advocate its use. 

The whole debate was resurected during the deregulation fiasco over the recent years in California.  There is still a big lobby against it.  Think about it, what other reason is there to be against it.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

well, in the end, the us might not be so far behing, because with the new technologie (ITER) that the japanese and french are working on ( http://www.iter.org/index.htm - and the center will be near my second home town Aix en Provence, south of france)

the old fashionned Fission nuclear plant might be out dated.
Fusion creates less radiocactive material and is much more effecient.

so the us can hop on the train now.

[SLCPUNK]

Nuclear is the way to go I think, but we are so far away from anything like that here. I am afraid we will dick around until it's too late. There is a chance oil could be used up one day............

Too bad the left killed the development of nuclear plants in the 80s. 

LOL, how so?

I do not know what the LOL is for??  It is a pretty much common knowledge.  During the 80's the left protested and had a campaign that led people to believe that Chenobyl would be the rule rather than the exception.  It was a campaign based on fear that misled the public.  It still exists among the left whenever nuclear power is brought up.  Believe me, my father works in the industry and he is bombarded by questions about it all of the time.  I was actually surprised to see some here advocate its use. 

The whole debate was resurected during the deregulation fiasco over the recent years in California.  There is still a big lobby against it.  Think about it, what other reason is there to be against it.

No links, facts, articles, anything? Just your word on all this huh?

LOL is because your notion is absurd.

So you claim the protest from the left actual shot down the use of nuclear power as an alternative resource? Even though Reagan was president for 8 yrs, followed by Bush for 4.

Then, with W already into his second term, still no real push for nuclear power? Wow, the left must have some amazing strength that has a hangtime of almost 20 yrs!!! 

It couldn't be because Bush I, and W are in cahoots with big oil....Naaaah...that couldn't be it. 

Once again, the left have ruined it for everybody. Not only that, but they ruined it 20 years ago for everybody today!

Amazing! 

[Vicious Wishes]

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:4rgRWWMS-rQJ:www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/357Lgarzachap3.pdf+antinuclear+power&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[SLCPUNK]

So demanding accountability=speaking out against your country?

Yes.

I guess you definition of "speaking out against your country" would be bad.

In my book, calling somebody on a pack of lies, and war crimes, is the most patriotic thing I can do.

The legal definition of what you're doing is sedition and during world war 2 would probably have gotten you locked up.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Quoted in 1918, by REPUBLICAN President Theodore Roosevelt

[Surfrider]

No links, facts, articles, anything? Just your word on all this huh?

The fact that you are challenging my assertion is what is amazing.  My father has worked in the industry for 30 years so I am pretty familiar with it.  You can agree or disagree with the assertion, but Im not basing my opinion on an article I read but from someone that knows the industry and from my own perceptions as someone that has had an interest in the nuclear industry.  If you want links or articles you can look for yourself because I am not here to try and convince the unconvinceable. 

LOL is because your notion is absurd.

Can you not handle one bit of criticism of the left?  The right is fucked up to.  They are a big part of the reason why we have no alternatives to gas guzzling cars.  Both sides can be criticized for the energy crisis, not just Bush and Halliburton.

So you claim the protest from the left actual shot down the use of nuclear power as an alternative resource? Even though Reagan was president for 8 yrs, followed by Bush for 4.

Yes, look it up.  There hasnt been any facilities built since three mile island fiasco.  Those on FAR left deceived the public about the safety and environmental effects of nuclear energy.  It is a campaign that continues today about nuclear energy.  Besides, most plants are approved on a state wide basis and then are regulated federally.  The left goes and protests anywhere one is about to be built by convincing the public that there will be a meltdown.  It happens all the time.  Where I have lived in California there are nuclear plants that produce the energy, and everytime they are about to extend the license of the plant there is protest after protest.

Then, with W already into his second term, still no real push for nuclear power? Wow, the left must have some amazing strength that has a hangtime of almost 20 yrs!!!?

It has nothing to do with the presidency.  Companies try to get them built and states deny them. 

It couldn't be because Bush I, and W are in cahoots with big oil....Naaaah...that couldn't be it.?

LOL, I am surprised it took you this long to blame it on Bush and big oil.  LOL.  You do know that many of the big oil companies are also the owners of many of the nuclear plants.  Besides, as I pointed out California has denied such plants because of their safety not because of big oil.  I do not think you would suggest that California, perhaps the most liberal nation in the country, would be in bed with big oil would you?  The fact that you would blame it on Bush and big oil is amazing to me, but not surpising.

Once again, the left have ruined it for everybody. Not only that, but they ruined it 20 years ago for everybody today!

Amazing!?

Why else were such plants not built?  Most areas nuclear plants have been denied they are not competing with oil energy, but they are competing with coal, hydroelectric and other sources of energy.  You are very arrogant in your posts, expecially considering how your post clearly shows your lack of knowledge about the types of energy that nuclear competes with, and the fact that these plants are being stalled at the state level and not the national level.  Ironically, you will find that those states that are pushing for nuclear power are those that tend to have the biggest oil industries.

For someone that claims to be such an independent thinker, you should look stuff up yourself before trying to tear apart a post just because they use the term "left".  Certainly you do not ask for such evidence when the right is being criticized.  I enjoy many of your posts on Iraq and other things and I think your right on much of that stuff, but not everything is the result of Iraq, Bush, and big oil.  I am not going to tell you how to post, but it sure would be great if you could discuss a topic with an open mind without bashing or ridculing anyone that disagrees or has a difference of opinion than you.

[SLCPUNK]

The fact that you are challenging my assertion is what is amazing.  My father has worked in the industry for 30 years so I am pretty familiar with it.  You can agree or disagree with the assertion, but Im not basing my opinion on an article I read but from someone that knows the industry and from my own perceptions as someone that has had an interest in the nuclear industry.  If you want links or articles you can look for yourself because I am not here to try and convince the unconvinceable. 

haha, wow, how dare I question you....

Please try you appeal by authority with somebody else.

Democrats just backed a bill to push for more nuclear power not to long ago anyway.

Can you not handle one bit of criticism of the left?  The right is fucked up to.  They are a big part of the reason why we have no alternatives to gas guzzling cars.  Both sides can be criticized for the energy crisis, not just Bush and Halliburton.

I'm not blaming Bush and Halliburton for everything, nor am I letting the left on the hook on everything. It is Clintons fault, for instance, for the rise of SUVs and more waste, as he didn't require suvs to have a mpg standard.


 However you claiming it's the lefts fault for the lack of progress on nuclear energy is not going to fly here.

Don't change the subject and claim I can't take criticism, that isn't the point.

  The fact that you would blame it on Bush and big oil is amazing to me, but not surpising.

I'm not. You are blaming it totally on the left, which is false statement, backed with "my father....."

For someone that claims to be such an independent thinker, you should look stuff up yourself before trying to tear apart a post just because they use the term "left".  Certainly you do not ask for such evidence when the right is being criticized.  I enjoy many of your posts on Iraq and other things and I think your right on much of that stuff, but not everything is the result of Iraq, Bush, and big oil.  I am not going to tell you how to post, but it sure would be great if you could discuss a topic with an open mind without bashing or ridculing anyone that disagrees or has a difference of opinion than you.

Your generalization is what got me to post. Claiming it's all one sides fault is bullshit and you know it. You can attack me anyway you want, but you know darn well it is everybodies fault that nuclear energy isn't being used. Not just the left. Again I didn't say everything was a a result of Bush and big oil. Oil companies have their hands in all kinds of up and coming energy sources, however it doesn't stop them from churning out record profits from the cash cow currently in place now, ie OIL.

[Surfrider]

Why else has not one plant been built since Three Mile?  It was scare tactics by the extreme far left factions.  Believe it or not.  If you dont believe me than search yourself for why there has been no plants built.  It was misinformation about the safety of the plants.  Of course with anything there are numerous factors that lead to a result, but the one the one that was the most influential was the protests and misinformation campaign about the safety of nuclear plants. 

Perhaps I should have said the far left, but the fact of the matter is that it came from left wing factions.  In fact, it still exists.  I think its good that the dems voted for the energy plan, however, it wasnt the dems in Congress that I was referring to, it was left wing special interest groups.

Sorry for sounding so adversarial, but it was simply a response to what I read as a post mocking my post with no substance in which to mock it.

[SLCPUNK]

Why else has not one plant been built since Three Mile?  It was scare tactics by the extreme far left factions.  Believe it or not.  If you dont believe me than search yourself for why there has been no plants built.  It was misinformation about the safety of the plants.  Of course with anything there are numerous factors that lead to a result, but the one the one that was the most influential was the protests and misinformation campaign about the safety of nuclear plants. 

Perhaps I should have said the far left, but the fact of the matter is that it came from left wing factions.  In fact, it still exists.  I think its good that the dems voted for the energy plan, however, it wasnt the dems in Congress that I was referring to, it was left wing special interest groups.

Sorry for sounding so adversarial, but it was simply a response to what I read as a post mocking my post with no substance in which to mock it.

I'm not mocking you.

Bustin' your balls, yea, mocking no.

Look, of course there are people against nuclear power, there still are, but that does not mean it is the left's stance on that issue. Nor does it mean, the 'left stopped it from happening, or proceeding'.

The main concern is what to do with the waste, which I agree, needs to be done correctly, with no looking the other way when it comes to accountability.

[Surfrider]

Why else has not one plant been built since Three Mile?? It was scare tactics by the extreme far left factions.? Believe it or not.? If you dont believe me than search yourself for why there has been no plants built.? It was misinformation about the safety of the plants.? Of course with anything there are numerous factors that lead to a result, but the one the one that was the most influential was the protests and misinformation campaign about the safety of nuclear plants.?

Perhaps I should have said the far left, but the fact of the matter is that it came from left wing factions.? In fact, it still exists.? I think its good that the dems voted for the energy plan, however, it wasnt the dems in Congress that I was referring to, it was left wing special interest groups.

Sorry for sounding so adversarial, but it was simply a response to what I read as a post mocking my post with no substance in which to mock it.

I'm not mocking you.

Bustin' your balls, yea, mocking no.

Look, of course there are people against nuclear power, there still are, but that does not mean it is the left's stance on that issue. Nor does it mean, the 'left stopped it from happening, or proceeding'.

The main concern is what to do with the waste, which I agree, needs to be done correctly, with no looking the other way when it comes to accountability.

Fair enough.  Ill just bet we run into the same barriers when the next plant starts to be built.  Your right though, the considerations nowadays are terrorism and waste.  The waste issue, however, is only a problem because the government does not allow us to reuse spent fuel as other countries do.  I dont blame Nevada for not wanting the cast storage there, but not sure where would be a better place??

[SLCPUNK]

Why else has not one plant been built since Three Mile?  It was scare tactics by the extreme far left factions.  Believe it or not.  If you dont believe me than search yourself for why there has been no plants built.  It was misinformation about the safety of the plants.  Of course with anything there are numerous factors that lead to a result, but the one the one that was the most influential was the protests and misinformation campaign about the safety of nuclear plants. 

Perhaps I should have said the far left, but the fact of the matter is that it came from left wing factions.  In fact, it still exists.  I think its good that the dems voted for the energy plan, however, it wasnt the dems in Congress that I was referring to, it was left wing special interest groups.

Sorry for sounding so adversarial, but it was simply a response to what I read as a post mocking my post with no substance in which to mock it.

I'm not mocking you.

Bustin' your balls, yea, mocking no.

Look, of course there are people against nuclear power, there still are, but that does not mean it is the left's stance on that issue. Nor does it mean, the 'left stopped it from happening, or proceeding'.

The main concern is what to do with the waste, which I agree, needs to be done correctly, with no looking the other way when it comes to accountability.

Fair enough.  Ill just bet we run into the same barriers when the next plant starts to be built.  Your right though, the considerations nowadays are terrorism and waste.  The waste issue, however, is only a problem because the government does not allow us to reuse spent fuel as other countries do.  I dont blame Nevada for not wanting the cast storage there, but not sure where would be a better place??

The NV thing is understandable. Nobody wants it anywhere. The biggie to me, is watching them transport it. Nobody wants the stuff coming through their town either....I think more people are changing over to the Nuclear option. Dems who were against it (for disposal reasons) have begun to swtich. People are realising that we are too dependent on oil. We are on a downward ratio...We find one barrel for every four we consume.

I read up on it before I was going to move to LV, but now...I'm pretty far away from there, so I haven't read on it in a while.

Something has to give quick. I did the math and even if the price of gas doubled, I could still go on. I'd work a touch more, or adjust my spending, or both. No big deal. But I don't own a 8 cylinder SUV either. I swear I see more people driving SUVs down here in Florida then Utah (where it would actually be needed). I must wonder what type of hit these people will take? Average consumer driving a Yukon is getting what? 10 mpg in town? How big a tank? And how often to fill up? I bet they are paying 80 bucks a week before this started. That is 240 bucks a month. Price goes up 25% and then they are making as much as their SUV payment on gas. When do people look in the mirror and ask if this makes sense anymore?

People are also snatching up cheaply built McMansions on interest only loans, burning away electricity they don't need to live the "American dream". I mean...how wasteful are we becoming here? I have a 2000 sq ft home and 1/4 of that I don't know what to do with. It's too much for me, and I have two kids and two dogs. I already told my wife that when we buy the home we are going to stay in, we really don't need much more than 1800 ft. Anything more, would be wasteful.

I guess the theme Americans need to learn is: just because we can, doesn't mean we have to do have it. Our diet and obesity in this country is a great example of how we think too, ie MORE MORE MORE.

Just like those before us, it will take a hit to the pocket book to change, or at least demand it.

[Surfrider]

The interest only loans crack me up.  Some people are just stupid.  I guess in California they are just praying that they get equity through an increase in the housing market.  However, too bad it has started to sputter.  The thing is, not only are these people on interest only loans, but they have adjustable rates.  Right now they can barely pay the interest payments with their adjustable rate.  As soon as rates continue to increase these people arent going to make their payments, and they are going to have no equity (cause housing prices are no longer increasing, and they only are paying off interest).  It almost seems to be the PERFECT STORM for the housing market.  Since I am not an owner, I am eagerly awaiting this storm in order to get into a house in an expensive area.

Your quote about living on debt to live the American Dream is very true out here.  I see all of these people with new 700 thousand dollar houses with two new SUVs in the driveway.  These are families with a combined income of about 60k or less.  They are going to be hit hard.  Americans do live on far too much debt, and its going to hit some soon, but not us.

[Cornell]

SLCPunk for president!!!?

You're right about a lot of Americans wanting more than they can afford.? I see it a lot.? There are people that make 1/2 as much as I do that have twice as much and I wonder how they do it.? Well, all their credit cards are maxed out and they are in debt up to their ears.

I'm proud to say that I pay cash for my vehicles, owe very little on my 4 bedroom house/4 bath house, and pay off my credit card every month.? I make double payments on my house every month so I can get rid of that.? Currently other than that, my biggest expense each month are my taxes! (although gas is a close 2nd.)

[SLCPUNK]

You're right about a lot of Americans wanting more than they can afford.  I see it a lot.  There are people that make 1/2 as much as I do that have twice as much and I wonder how they do it.  Well, all their credit cards are maxed out and they are in debt up to their ears.

I'm proud to say that I pay cash for my vehicles, owe very little on my 4 bedroom house/4 bath house, and pay off my credit card every month.  I make double payments on my house every month so I can get rid of that.  Currently other than that, my biggest expense each month are my taxes! (although gas is a close 2nd.)

Right on!! You are one of the few out there who do this.

A good book is "The millionaire next door" talks about how so many people in these homes really have no liquid money and they are in debt to their eyeballs.

I am with you and will try to pay off my home in under ten years. I want to experience life, not be a slave to the banks. What kind of life is that? The worst thing I see people do is pull money from their homes to pay cc debt, then rack up more debt. So they are using their home as an ATM machine and then doing it all over again. I wonder if people have gone insane in this country? haha, I'm serious though, how are these people going to retire?

The interest only loans crack me up. Some people are just stupid. I guess in California they are just praying that they get equity through an increase in the housing market. However, too bad it has started to sputter. The thing is, not only are these people on interest only loans, but they have adjustable rates. Right now they can barely pay the interest payments with their adjustable rate. As soon as rates continue to increase these people arent going to make their payments, and they are going to have no equity (cause housing prices are no longer increasing, and they only are paying off interest). It almost seems to be the PERFECT STORM for the housing market. Since I am not an owner, I am eagerly awaiting this storm in order to get into a house in an expensive area.

Your quote about living on debt to live the American Dream is very true out here. I see all of these people with new 700 thousand dollar houses with two new SUVs in the driveway. These are families with a combined income of about 60k or less. They are going to be hit hard. Americans do live on far too much debt, and its going to hit some soon, but not us.

I read how the median home price in California is 500k. That two young people, each making 50k each, use 70% of their income on an interest only loan, to buy a fixer upper. I mean, Jesus man, time for a reality check!! This is nuts.

Interest only loans are ok if you are an investor I think. But, that is part of investing, you can loose your butt. An everyday home buyer to do this is nuts. I know a guy who has a 4 option loan type setup, he can pay interest only, less than interest (but interest is then tacked onto the interest the next month!!!), the normal payment, or inbetween. Uhhh....hello? Which one do you think he chooses? He uses the extra money to party with...dumb.

[SLCPUNK]

By Ron Scherer and Adam Karlin Tue Aug 16, 4:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - As gasoline breaks the $2.50 a gallon barrier, creative energy-saving ideas are beginning to flow from US business that could help Americans spend less at the pump.


? More companies are helping employees cut out-of-pocket fuel expenses through telecommuting programs.

? A campaign in Atlanta pays commuters $3 a day for three months if they switch to "clean commutes," such as bicycles and van pools.

? The car-sharing companies that are springing up offer a significant number of gas-sipping hybrids.

? The owner of some Milwaukee gasoline stations is giving a discount to cabdrivers who buy his brand of gas.

Yes, Americans, even with their long love affair with the SUV, are also starting to look for ways to cut down on gasoline expenses that are hitting as high as $500 a month.

"We are on the cusp of change," says Mark Routt, a senior consultant at Energy Security Analysis Inc. in Wakefield, Mass. "Looking back over the last year, Americans have had a taste of higher oil prices that have only gone up, and now they are starting to dial in lifestyle changes."

Indeed, the catalyst to this newfound interest in conservation is the soaring price of oil, which was close to a record $67 a barrel on the futures exchange Monday.

With two more weeks in the summer driving season, regular unleaded is now $2.55 a gallon nationally, according to GasPriceWatch.com.

Americans say the prices are strapping them financially. On Friday, an Associated Press-AOL poll of 1,000 adults found that 64 percent say gas prices will cause them money problems in the next six months.

According to an analysis by Mark Wolfe, director of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, gas prices will cost a family with two cars $533 more this year than last - $917 more than two years ago.

"For people who are low income, this is like your entire salary increase goes to energy and for those on fixed income, it's even worse," says Mr. Wolfe.

At least according to anecdotal evidence, the price spike has Americans investigating ways to cut down on their bills.

In Milwaukee, Andy Khullar, who owns 18 gasoline/convenience stores, is giving a discount to a large taxi fleet when the drivers buy his brand of gas. "Everyone is watching their pennies," Mr. Khullar says.

Some motorists are opting for car- sharing companies, which offer members a fleet of cars that can be reserved on an hourly or daily basis. One such company is Seattle-based Flexcar. Its flat fee includes, among other things, gas, which isn't as big of a cost to the company as some might think: Sixty percent of the Flexcar fleet are hybrids.

"Business is good for us," says Lance Ayrault, Flexcar CEO. "I don't know if we can directly attribute it to spiking gas [prices]. Certainly as gas approaches record highs, we get a lot of inquiries."

Another approach is evident in San Ramon, Calif., where the Bishop Ranch Business Park is throwing every inducement managers can think of at commuters so they won't drive to work solo. Almost 30,000 commuters clock into one of the 350 companies in the business park. But with the incentives funded by the park's developer and Chevron Corp., 30 percent of employees don't drive to work by themselves.

Van-poolers, for instance, get half of their van-pool fees rebated after committing to the service for three months, according to Marci McGuire, transportation manager for the Bishop Ranch transportation center.

On top of that, free buses shuttle workers 55 times a day from Bay Area Rapid Transit stops to Bishop Ranch and back. And if an emergency calls an employee away, he or she can take advantage of six free taxi rides. "Only about 2 to 3 percent of people use that service per year. But it's the biggest objection people have to giving up their car," says Ms. McGuire. "They say, 'I have children in school. I have to drive!' "

Those who take the plunge into car- and van-pools often find it worthwhile. That's the case of Kellie Prince Anglin, who works for Fiserv, an Atlanta financial services firm. She estimates that she used to pay $500 a month for gas for her Dodge Durango.

But in three months of van-pooling, Ms. Anglin estimates that her monthly gas expenses plummeted to $170. She also enjoys the increased free time in the morning. "I have a laptop with a wireless card, and I find myself working some on the way in. We even play Trivial Pursuit in the van one or two times a week," she says.

Both Fiserv and the local Clean Air Campaign pay 20 percent of the van-pool fee.

For yet others, the campaign contributes the sum of $3 a day for a "clean commute."

Still other companies are trying to help employees cut gasoline expenses by participating in telecommuting programs. In the Atlanta area, such companies as Georgia Power, General Electric Energy, and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta are allowing employees to work at home.

"There is a lot more interest in the programs across the board because of the high gas prices," says Michael Halicki, communications director of the Clean Air Campaign, which recently sponsored a study of the issue. The survey, which will be released this week, found that employees working at home reward their employers with extra hours of work. "They get up to 20 percent more work from them than from office-bound counterparts," he says.

[Skeba]

The price of gas over in the US is still waaay lower than here in Europe.. I'd like to know what people over there would say if the price was lifted from what you have now, to the numbers we have here...

Over here, in Finland, the average cost for one liter of fuel was 1,268 euros. Now that is 1,565 dollars. And that's for one liter.. A liter is about 0,26 gallons, so when you do the math, a gallon of gasoline in Finland for example costs 5,93 US

And of course, like everywhere else, the price is going up.

[SLCPUNK]

The price of gas over in the US is still waaay lower than here in Europe.. I'd like to know what people over there would say if the price was lifted from what you have now, to the numbers we have here...

They'd shit themselves. We already have people spending 500 bucks a month on gas, yet they drive on. So how much more of a hit is it going to take for these people to give up the gas whore SUVs (part of what got us in trouble in the first place)?

I have to wonder what number will put us in a recession. 3.5 gallon? 4.50 gallon? 5.0???

By inflation standards, we are lower than we are 20 yrs ago too. But that still doesn't mean it won't hurt people in the pocketbook when these prices increase. In America, most people's money is all accounted for before they even get it. So any little financial change, could be a big bump.

Again, with speculative prices around 3 a gallon wholesale, it may get UGLY soon. I think many Americans (if they are not already) will turn to their creidt cards to pay the higher gas/energy bills. The gas cards will just extend more credit and we'll just charge away.

I was doing the math today and if the price went up to 5 bucks a gallon, I'd still be ok, but sure as heck would be carpooling more often.

If it does get that high, I'm buying a benz diesel and converting it to run on veggie oil. If I do, I'll post pics here.

[Cornell]

The price of gas over in the US is still waaay lower than here in Europe.. I'd like to know what people over there would say if the price was lifted from what you have now, to the numbers we have here...

They'd shit themselves. We already have people spending 500 bucks a month on gas, yet they drive on. So how much more of a hit is it going to take for these people to give up the gas whore SUVs (part of what got us in trouble in the first place)?

Good question - it would have to get super high for me to make my sons quick playing hockey and for me to quit work so the driving would be cut down.   Well, I could find a smaller vehicle to drive to work, but not for hockey.  Actually, we have one big vehicle and one small one.  Since I drive the most, I usually drive the smaller one except for hockey.  That's the best that I can do for now - unless I want to start strapping my kids to the roof of the vehicle.