Good News: $3.00 Pump Price!

[Powerman]

It's speculation because it's your opinion without research. My current house - 2012 sq ft consumes less energy than my last house, which was 1120sq ft. Lots of factors come into play here...

How one uses the space - for instance, I spent more time in a 300sq ft room of my new house, than I did in 800sq ft in my previous house, I'd use less heat, less electricity now than before.

Basing consumption of energy on square-footage alone is jumping to huge conclusions w/o specific data.

Yes...but all things equal you will spend more money on a larger house....if we are talking about a 20 thousand square foot house owned by a celebrity it's going to be consuming massive amounts of energy. You can have cheaper bills in larger places if you are more conservative with how you use your electricity and how well your house is insulated but all things equal the bigger house will consume more. That's just simple logic.

I could just as easily apply your logic to SUVs and more fuel efficient cars. If I made it a priority to live 3 miles from work and drive a Hummer and you live 25 miles from work and drive a Honda Accord then you would be the one spending more on energy. But all things equal the honda accord is more efficient.

 

[dmp]

Yes...but all things equal you will spend more money on a larger house....if we are talking about a 20 thousand square foot house owned by a celebrity it's going to be consuming massive amounts of energy. You can have cheaper bills in larger places if you are more conservative with how you use your electricity and how well your house is insulated but all things equal the bigger house will consume more. That's just simple logic.

I could just as easily apply your logic to SUVs and more fuel efficient cars. If I made it a priority to live 3 miles from work and drive a Hummer and you live 25 miles from work and drive a Honda Accord then you would be the one spending more on energy. But all things equal the honda accord is more efficient.

...but nothing IS equal.

Funny how upset you get when people make untrue/assumed statements - without backing them up.

Gotcha this time!

 

[Powerman]

...but nothing IS equal.

Funny how upset you get when people make untrue/assumed statements - without backing them up.

Gotcha this time!

No....not really. There are people that live in ridiculous sized houses that are in serious excess of what they need. As a result they consume more energy. I agree with you that energy and square footage aren't directly related. That much is obvious. But in general very large houses consume a lot of energy. And the super rich don't care about energy bills so they are more likely not to be conservative with it.

 

[manu1959]

a 20,000 sq. ft house with a celeb and his family of 4 vs 10 2,000 sq. ft. homes with 10 familys of 4 in them

so your therory is 4 people in 20,000 sq. ft. will consume more energy than 40 people in the same 20,000 sq. ft.?

10 refers vs 1
10 washer dryers vs 1
10 kitchens vs 1
10 meal cycles per day vs 1
40 showers per day vs 4
10 hot water heaters vs 1 or 2
and on and on and on

damn you are so dumb you don't even know it

by the way rich peolple have solar heating and photovoltaic cells and green design designed into their homes because it saves them money and makes the house virtually free to run.....like my house

 

[no1tovote4]

No....not really. There are people that live in ridiculous sized houses that are in serious excess of what they need. As a result they consume more energy. I agree with you that energy and square footage aren't directly related. That much is obvious. But in general very large houses consume a lot of energy. And the super rich don't care about energy bills so they are more likely not to be conservative with it.

The super rich didn't get that way by wasting their money frivolously. They are more likely to purchase houses that are better built that will comsume less per square foot than less expensive houses. They are also more likely to purchase solar panels and other renewable resources as they can afford them, and it will save them money in the long run, believe it or not almost every rich person I know also cares about others and the environment. Many of the super rich that I know are not even on the energy grid, most are still on it for emergency purposes but actually make money by selling excess energy back to the power companies.

This assumption that they are irresponsible and won't care simply because they are rich is only unjustified class warfare. The super rich are people with the same amount of irresponsibility and responsibility as the poor. This assumption that money makes them all into uncaring zombies that pay no attention to their environment and care nothing for others is simply another form of class warfare and an element of jealousy seems to shine through.

 

[Powerman]

a 20,000 sq. ft house with a celeb and his family of 4 vs 10 2,000 sq. ft. homes with 10 familys of 4 in them

so your therory is 4 people in 20,000 sq. ft. will consume more energy than 40 people in the same 20,000 sq. ft.?

10 refers vs 1
10 washer dryers vs 1
10 kitchens vs 1
10 meal cycles per day vs 1
40 showers per day vs 4
10 hot water heaters vs 1 or 2
and on and on and on

damn you are so dumb you don't even know it

by the way rich peolple have solar heating and photovoltaic cells and green design designed into their homes because it saves them money and makes the house virtually free to run.....like my house

This has to be the most retarded thing I've ever read in my life. I'm not comparing 10 houses to 1 house. I'm comparing one house to one house. The family of 4 that lives in the 20,000 square foot house will obviously consume more energy than the family of 4 living in a 2,000 square foot house. Did you take your stupid pills this morning or something? WTF did you think I was talking about?

 

[Powerman]

The super rich didn't get that way by wasting their money frivolously. They are more likely to purchase houses that are better built that will comsume less per square foot than less expensive houses. They are also more likely to purchase solar panels and other renewable resources as they can afford them, and it will save them money in the long run, believe it or not almost every rich person I know also cares about others and the environment. Many of the super rich that I know are not even on the energy grid, most are still on it for emergency purposes but actually make money by selling excess energy back to the power companies.

This assumption that they are irresponsible and won't care simply because they are rich is only unjustified class warfare. The super rich are people with the same amount of irresponsibility and responsibility as the poor. This assumption that money makes them all into uncaring zombies that pay no attention to their environment and care nothing for others is simply another form of class warfare and an element of jealousy seems to shine through.

1. Why are we basing this on the people that you know? You don't know every rich person in the united states or even enough to speak for them in general. It's simply impossible for you to do so. Secondly I don't care what they do with their money or how much energy they use. My point is it's stupid to get bent out of shape over an SUV when no one complains about the massive energy spent in home usage. It's not consistent to only care about one energy hog and dismiss the other.

 

[no1tovote4]

This has to be the most retarded thing I've ever read in my life. I'm not comparing 10 houses to 1 house. I'm comparing one house to one house. The family of 4 that lives in the 20,000 square foot house will obviously consume more energy than the family of 4 living in a 2,000 square foot house. Did you take your stupid pills this morning or something? WTF did you think I was talking about?

Only if all things were equal. They are not. The 20,000 sq ft. house will likely have solar panels and photovoltaic cells to create renewable energy. It will likely be better built to use less energy per sq ft. Their usage will mostly come from their renewable resources and they can often actually sell excess energy back to the power company in their area. In CO when you do so you get nearly as much as the consumer has to pay for it.

 

[no1tovote4]

1. Why are we basing this on the people that you know? You don't know every rich person in the united states or even enough to speak for them in general. It's simply impossible for you to do so. Secondly I don't care what they do with their money or how much energy they use. My point is it's stupid to get bent out of shape over an SUV when no one complains about the massive energy spent in home usage. It's not consistent to only care about one energy hog and dismiss the other.

You are basing it on the assumption of the actions of people that you don't know? I base it on the people that I know because I can see what they do. How could I base it on the people that I don't know or actions of people that I cannot see what they might do?

If I did I would be making assumptions and probably would be incorrect.

 

[Powerman]

Only if all things were equal. They are not. The 20,000 sq ft. house will likely have solar panels and photovoltaic cells to create renewable energy.

Really? That's news to me. I would imagine most don't.

It will likely be better built to use less energy per sq ft.

I agree with you there.

 

[no1tovote4]

"Really? That's news to me. I would imagine most don't."

Drive through the most opulent area in your city, count the houses that don't have them at all. Most will have them on the back of the house, you will need to look carefully. You will be surprised at what you find. Of course in CO solar power works especially well as we have only about 9 days of the year that are entirely overcast making solar power particularly efficient.

 

[dmp]

This thread could be renamed: Powerman gets pwn3d.

Funny - 'power'man talking about 'energy' hehe

 

[Annie]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8897401/site/newsweek/

Nominal vs. Real News
Americans relish self-pity, so only a spoilsport will note that the portion of consumer spending on energy has declined since 1980.
By George F. Will
Newsweek

Aug. 29 - Sept. 5, 2005 issue - It may seem a strange principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a Hospital that it should do the sick no harm.
—Florence Nightingale, "Notes on Hospitals," 1863

And regarding news media, begin here: They should not subtract from the public's understanding. Yet subtract they nowadays do with endless headlines and talk about "record" oil and gasoline prices. For example, a recent headline in the Financial Times proclaimed: "New York investors take flight after price of oil hits record high." But the story's fifth paragraph read: "West Texas Intermediate for September delivery settled $1.83 higher at $64.90 a barrel—a new nominal record ..." The real meaning of the word "nominal" is: "The headline you just read is rubbish." As was the next day's page-one headline—"Oil price hits $66 for a fourth record of the week"—which was nullified by the story's first words: "Oil prices yesterday broke their fourth consecutive nominal record for the week ..."

For the price of oil—not in nominal dollars but real, inflation-adjusted dollars—to surpass the record set in January 1981, it would have to be $86.72 per barrel. Last Friday it was $65.35. For headlines about "record" gasoline prices to be accurate, a gallon would have to cost $3.12. Last week the national average reached $2.55—less, in real terms, than in March 1981, when the price in today's dollars was $3.11. Or, for that matter, in 1935, when the price was $2.67. Which explains one of the least mysterious "mysteries" of the moment—why, in spite of "sky-high oil prices" (Fox News) and "skyrocketing" gas prices (CNN), people are, according to AAA, driving more.

Fuming drivers should remember that the cost of a gallon of gasoline also contains a cost of government—18.4 cents federal tax and an average of 25.6 cents state taxes. So the cost of the gallon is what the pump tells you—minus about 44 cents.

Since the oil shocks of the 1970s, when the price of oil went from $1.80 a barrel in January 1970 ($9.80 in today's dollars) to $28.91 in December 1979 ($71.88 in today's dollars), the economy has become much more energy-efficient. Total energy consumption per dollar of gross domestic product has been cut almost in half since 1973.

But in America, every pleasure quickly becomes an entitlement, so Americans regard as a civil-rights outrage the fact that today's relatively low price of a gallon of gasoline—relative to prices in other years—is 67.5 cents higher than last year's very low price. Americans relish the pleasure of self-pity, so only a spoilsport will mention that since 1980 the share of consumer spending that goes for energy has declined from 9 percent to 6 percent.

Three days after The New York Times, ever the Cassandra, lamented the "outsized" budget deficit, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that the deficit for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 will be down $81 billion from last year, to $331 billion, which is 2.7 percent of GDP. The CBO also forecasts that next year, when the economy is expected to be 5.7 percent bigger, the deficit will be $17 billion smaller, and just 2.4 percent of GDP. Since 1946, the average deficit has been 1.6 percent, and the worst deficit, in 1983, during the recession when Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker were wringing inflation out of the economy, was 6 percent.

Between 1945 and 1982, the economy was in recession 22.4 percent of the time. In the 272 months since November 1982, the economy has been in recession just 14 months—5.1 percent of the time. The economy is almost certainly in its 10th consecutive quarter of growth exceeding 3 percent. This is why, even after President Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues are 17.5 percent of GDP, just one point below the postwar norm. The average growth of the economy in the preceding nine quarters—4.1 percent—would double the size of the economy in 18 years.

Over the last 40 years productivity growth has averaged 2.1 percent. Since 2001 it has averaged 3.9 percent. One reason for this surge? A 1998 prediction by Paul Krugman, now a New York Times columnist, was spectacularly wrong: "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

Remember the 2004 campaign rhetoric complaining about the "jobless recovery"? Even though rising productivity means production can increase without increasing employment, the economy has added 4 million jobs since July 2003. If memory serves, on "Fibber McGee and Molly," a radio program that began amusing Americans during the Depression, Molly used to say soothingly to her sometimes morose husband, "If it makes you happy to be unhappy, then be unhappy." If it makes America happy to be the crybaby of the Western world, well, the pursuit of happiness takes many forms. It is, however, hellishly difficult to keep cheerfulness at bay when the nation's unemployment rate is 5 percent, less than half that in France (10.1) and Germany (11.6).

Still, various voices warn that parts of the economy's improvement are "temporary." Well, yes—isn't everything? During a broadcast 14 years ago, Vin Scully, voice of the Los Angeles Dodgers, said, "Andre Dawson has a bruised knee and is listed as day-to-day." (Pause) "Aren't we all?"
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

 

[Nuc]

They don't. But they should be able to drive whatever the fuck they want to drive. Why does someone need a 10 thousand square foot house? You should be just as pissed at them as you are at people who drive SUVs. If not you are a hypocrite.

People should be able to drive whatever the fuck they want to drive? Why?

 

[Minuteman]

"In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens, he said. All prices updated March, 2005."


Could this be the reason Bush/Rummy/Cheney don't like Chavez??

 

[insein]

People should be able to drive whatever the fuck they want to drive? Why?

ITs America. If you want to pay for it, its your money. Not the government's. Thats why.

 

[insein]

"In a few Latin America and Middle-East nations, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, oil is produced by a government-owned company and local gasoline prices are kept low as a benefit to the nation's citizens, he said. All prices updated March, 2005."


Could this be the reason Bush/Rummy/Cheney don't like Chavez??

It doesnt benefit the nations citizens when their taxes are out the ass and their living conditions are in the shitter.

"Here's some cheap gas, senor."

"Alright! Now if i could only afford a car."

 

[Allanon68]

yeah , unfortunately we all dont need to by 25 gallons of milk a week !!!! next argument.

You gotta give me rep points on that one cause that was pure ownage. Cmon, gimme gimme gimme. LOL

The following table illustrates how relatively inexpensive gasoline is compared to other products. It shows the price of gasoline per gallon compared to the price of a sample of other liquids products Virginia consumers buy on a regular basis. As of August 2005, the average price of gasoline in Virginia was $2.51 per gallon.

Gasoline gal./$2.51
Milk gal./$2.99
Coca-Cola gal./$2.84
Gatorade gal./$5.20
Evian Water gal./$5.60
Orange Juice gal./$6.64
Crisco Oil gal./$7.44
Perrier Water gal./$8.16
Snapple gal./$10.32
Scope Mouthwash gal./$27.20
Lemon Oil gal./$27.22
Shampoo gal./$40.44
Olive Oil gal./$51.04
Real Maple Syrup gal./$57.08
Jack Daniel's Bourbon gal./$101.12
Visine Eye Drops gal./$995.84
Nasacort Nasal Spray gal./$2,615.28

http://www.vpcga.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=152

 

[Avatar4321]

funny...this whole thread reminds me of a Futurerama episode:

Fry: I can't swallow that!

Professor: Good news! It's a sipository.

I feel like we are in that kind of situation. yeah its good knews that its only $3 but it still feels like we are taking it up the ass.

 

[Powerman]

People should be able to drive whatever the fuck they want to drive? Why?

Because this isn't Nazi Germany. People should be allowed more freedoms, not less. Conservation should be encouraged but I don't think the guy that likes to go fishing on his weekends is an asshole for consuming more gas than I do.