OMG...... I just changed my oil!!!!!!!!!!!! The earth is going to end....................

Get a life and ENJOY it!!! Man, this whole save the world for future generations is all BS. Just like someone said eariler. Mother Earth will always prevail. Always has. So will future generations. I seriously doubt that in a hundred years, the worlds economy will be based on crude oil and internal combustion engines. We're just the lucky ones to be able to us it!!

We are just here for a short period of time and sure, we are depleting just one of it's resources, but just as sure as how it was discovered, there will be something to replace it......

Oh yeah, I put over 20k miles on my TRUCK this past year...... My monthly gas bill was averaging around $120.00. Big wooopp. My oil change just cost me about $10 bucks.... And now there is 6 less quarts of "new" oil in the world and 6 more qts of "old" oil...... Oh well................

 

"I bet you're also the ones who cringe everytime they pay their
gas bills, but won't ever admit it here."

I'll admit it, I hate to pay 1 cent more then I have to but that is capitalism. Do I have a problem with that, "no" its what gives me the ability to make good money at what I do. Without it we wouldnt live as long, have all the advances we have such as higher SEER etc. Thats what makes this such a great country, good ol' capitalism. The problem I have with most, not all, but most of the "Oh my God save mother earth people" is they are so mislead, so uninform its unbelievable. They, which is most of them are so confused about their beliefs and views they dont understand them enough to actually practice them on a daily basis. Example, we had someone here so worried and scared to death that people like me change my oil every 3k that poor mother earth would soon die. On the other hand this person who is so worried about "mother earth" himself drive an awesome, gas guzziling, oil sucking good ol' RICH america company automobile from Ford. Now if thats not bad enough its not a small escort that gets much better MPG but rather a F150, a manly truck that sucks down alot of manly gas brought to us from good ol' mother earth.

Now if this person was driving a battery powered auto, or riding a hourse I would have absolutly no problem with his views and beliefs and he would have my utmost respect. Yes I would disagree but respectfully so. I would not try to make him feel like an ***, I would not put him down, but rather try to change his mind as he would try to change mine, thats america no better place on mother earth to be.

Now for someone to preach to me or others about how bad, in this case, changing oil is hurting mother earth but yet does it himself, well no respect is due to his statements or views because they are completely invalid and not factual If they were he would be following his own advice "THEN" begin his preaching.

By the way, really want to make a liberal mad? Ask how did we get out of the "ice age" perhaps a little global warming? Then ask, who the hell was driving an F150 back then? Something to think about. Well I guess you could look at it like this, we are all helping "save" mother earth by helping to clean up this world wide huge toxic waste. How else can we clean up this huge oil spill left by them damn "dinos" except to guzzle it down while driving our mother earth, toxic waste clean up friendly F150.

 

I would suggest that those so concerned about energy use turn off their computers unless they are run by a bicycle driven generator! Every post uses engery. That energy lines the pocket of the Electric Company execs..... blah, blah, blah.

I change my oil when I want to.

This is America. I don't have to justify it. It is my right.

Did any of these people consider the damage to the environment caused by the energy consumption and raw materials used to make a new truck? Or dispose of the old truck?

 

signmaster

Excellent point. Can you imagine the sheer amount of energy required to produce one F-150? From metal fabrication, to engine block fabrication, etc. etc.

It's basically the ol' pick-and-choose what I want to get on the soapbox about. Reminds me of my "vegetarian" friend who chastised me for eating beef, but would then scarf down a turkey, chicken, or fish sandwhich.

 

Let us now draw some conclusions:

When a person decides to preach about a subject at length, and then begin with the fire and brimstone, a good long look into the full situation is warranted. A look into Dennis's situation would yield (sp?) some interesting facts:
Dennis owns a truck. Not just any truck, a big gas-guzzling one. He changes his oil and spends money to maintain his truck, just like everyone else.
Dennis is a strong advocate for the environment. Now, I find myself warbling back and forth on these issues. I hate to just throw down the glove for one side or the other without considering all the possibilities. It would appear that Dennis does not feel this way, and would rather just charge into the fray without considering what his thoughts and sermons might do.

With these two facts alone, one might draw some conclusions about Dennis. Perhaps he mis-spoke originally. Perhaps what came out in his writing was a deeper sense of duty towards saving the environment. Perhaps what he felt was a need to lash out against what he felt was a waste. Looked at on a small scale, this is a great cause.
Remove the tunnel vision, and this once-great cause becomes a silly crusade akin to one performed by little children as they play cops and robbers. Dennis, if you felt strongly enough to chastise members of this board for Following Guidelines Set Down By Ford In Their Manual, perhaps you might have considered a different vehicle. There are two gas-electric cars out on the road with insane gas milage, this would have been more in line with your views on non-waste. There are 40-mpg cars, the Honda Civic, the Geo Prism, perhaps this is what you wanted.
No, you chose to defy your own ideas and buy one of the most wasteful vehicles around.
Now, I will respect your 2900+ posts, you've been here some time now. I will respect your views, you are certainly entitled to hold them. I will respect your ability to agitate. But I will not respect you for being caught in a corner by your own stupidity and agitating this entire section of the board to try and dig yourself out of the hole you fell in. Need a backhoe?
You have pointed the finger at people and implied that we would rather guzzle gas than be safe, that our true interest is to be selfish and damage the environment. You have correctly surmised that I would buy a more effecient refridgerator, more effecient windows and doors and walls, all of these things, but you have incorrectly guessed my motive.
In the end, these things Will Save Me Money. The higher effeciency means I don't have to spend as much to cool or heat my house. Now, you see this as a good thing for the environment, I see it as a good thing for my pocket book. This means I can more afford to spend my money on my truck, where I want it to go.
You can't haul things with a Geo Prizm, this I understand. Well, it's just tough, in order for you to run your business and for you to haul your boat and whatever else it is that YOU want to do, you just had to buy an environment-harming gas-guzzling oil-sucking truck. So, it's all right to point the finger and say "You need to change, look what your actions are doing to the environment," but these things don't apply to you? I would say that if you really meant what you preached, You Would Apply It To Yourself First!

I think I've done enough damage here. However, I would ask my fellow F150 owners here maintain a high degree of class. Do not descend to this level of "aggravation and agitation." Have a good day.

Tim

 

cpadpl:

I am with you on that. I love meat. Cows are on earth for people like us to eat, (why, because they are stupid, if they had any brains they wouldnt be waiting around for us to eat). Trees are on earth for us to use; baseball bats, 2x4 for buliding, and something for us to haul in our F150's (why, because its an amazing thing, you plant a seed and it happens to grow, so hell if you can grow it again then cut it down and use it for something). Just those 2 examples are proof that they can be replinished. Grow more trees, and raise more cows. Something "will" replace oil one day and thats a FACT. Until that day the fine liberals in these forums pointed out something I myself can do to help poor ol' helpless mother earth. So I am now on a mission to help clean up this huge toxic waste produced by some dumb dino's. I pledge to you all that I shall do my very best, my utmost to use my F150 to suck down as much oil and gas as I possible can to rid mother earth of here toxic situation. I would ask all who can to please pledge with me in doing the same. Togeather we can all make mother earth a better place to live for our kids, their kids, and their kids, etc. etc.

Oh, and by the way thank God for all these RICH oil companies if it werent for them how could we do our part in helping mother earth. The liberals should be giving them high phrase for their part in helping clean mother earth.

 

cpadpl,

I never used "energy usage" and "pollution" in the same paragraph. I never mentioned anything about companies "getting rich" either.

You can turn the tables and I'll just point you to thermodynamic laws, chemistry text, the laws of physics, etc.. Beyond "The Simpsons", I don't watch much TV nor do I read many magazines for wisdom.

Does it really matter if the effects of your current non-value added actions are felt within you lifetime? If the effects are felt, there's a big big problem.

Mother nature may "heal" herself, but over what length of time? If Healing_rate=F(t) and Damage_rate=3*F(t) there's a problem. Is it a fact that mother nature is going to be able to with stand the onslaught from humans? Will the humans need to be wiped out in order for the earth to "heal"? Here's an example,not the best example albeit: Doctors take your blood for a blood test, your body makes new blood so that you can survive. Let's say you get 2 blood tests per year, you're fine with that & 2 blood tests per year are all that is necessary to do the stuff that needs to be done. How about 2 blood tests per month? How about 2 per day? If 2 a year is enough, but 2 a day guarantees that you can protect yourself, why not keep doing it twice a day? When you're going to die from having too much blood taken, is that when the doctor should say "hey, I think we shouldn't take so much blood"?

Back to talking about the earth, How long does it take XX pounds of biomass to decompse and form YY gallons of crude oil? How long does it take (the population of the earth as a whole) to use YY gallons of crude oil?

There is an article in a recent issue of car and driver (actually, a small side article) about the (amount of energy made usuable)/(amount of energy used to process and transport). The point was that hydrogen, as a usuable fuel, had a significantly lower value than LPG, but ethanol was closer to LPG. So, why is hydrogen being considered as a grand fuel? Why can't the gov't stop paying tobacco farmers for tobacco and pay them to produce biomass for ethanol? The total affect should be less energy wasted. IIRC: the exhaust products, from hydrogen reacting or ethanol reacting, are nearly the same.

The (amount of energy saved)/(amount of energy lost in the engine) by changing your oil @ 5000 instead of 3000 miles is pretty significant when you take into account the number of vehicles in use today. This is assuming the engine oil hasn't decompsed in such a manner as to alter is properties significantly compared to when it was "fresh" and reduce fuel economy, etc.. (a.a.k.a. You'll hit 5000 miles before a year or whatever timespan in which impurity are formed/injested into/by the oil.).

I'm not suggesting that you change your oil @ 5000 miles if it will hurt your engine (extreme use cases where oil has been proven to break down). Why not get a sensor system to measure the properties of oil so that can dictate when you should change your oil?

Also, I have no opinion; thermodynamics, chemistry, the laws of physics, etc.. dictate why I'm posting my comments.

To end this current post, formulate an equation for energy used based # of oil changes, time, fuel economy, etc.. take the derivative with respect to oil change interval (which should be based on mileage since that's where this discussion lies) and set that equal to zero. Do whatever iterations are necessary, note the boundaries/constraints and reach the point where that derivative is as close to zero as possible.

(sorry about this post jumping all over, I'm trying to get to dinner and I don't want to forget some of the points I wanted to mention)

 

Corpsie

First of all, thanks for responding with somewhat direct responses to my queries, as opposed to obviating to where aspirin comes from. It appears as if you are the type of person you can sit down with and have a fruitful discussion. I believe you misread my post, which noted that they (responses) were generalized specifics (oxymoron, DOH!). Dennis is the individual who made the reference to "rich oil companies." You simply used the term "short-sighted" which I noted in one post. In another post I attempted to generalize what you said, and these are your exact words: "And the used oil is somehow processed, which requires energy. The new oil is processed, which requires energy. It doesn't matter if 90% of the pollution comes from other sources, it all adds up in the end. If 80% of the people you knew stole candy from the blind, does that make it ok as long as you don't steal as much candy as they do." I felt as if I generalized what you said correctly, but if I did not I apologize. You did not use the term "usage", but you did use "energy", "requires", and "pollution". I took the liberty of surmising that "requires energy" necessarily correlates to "energy usage."

To respond in short, I believe I can summarize my answer to your question "Does it really matter if the effects of your current non-value added actions are felt within you lifetime?", by stating that my (and others) position is that there are NO effects of our current "non-value added" actions, or if there are effects they are too negligible to warrant concern. Thus, I disagree with your comment "I have no opinion; thermodynamics, chemistry, the laws of physics, etc.. dictate why I'm posting my comments," and this is also at the heart of what I have been attempting to explain. My educational background as well as the research I have done qualify me to have an opinion that is worthy of respect just as much as any other opinion. You are essentially suggesting that your position is that of fact, which it is not. Thermodynamics, chemistry, and the law of physics do not dictate any of what you have said. It is your opinion that they do.

In short, my beliefs can be summarized as follows:

1) Global warming - a farce (mere scientific opinion)
2) Contamination of ground water - non-issue as it is prohibited (at least where I live), small number of violators are inconsequential
3) Depletion of natural resource - again a farce, even scientists cannot determine within certainty how much is left.

This is the point at which I was hoping to get responses so as to discuss/debate different points of view and interpretations, but instead I got lambasted for being a right-wing conservation who wants to rip my seat belts out of my car. If you would like to discuss the basis for any of these beliefs I would be happy to discuss them, but maybe in another forum or thread, I think this one's getting LONG.

 

1.
I would be careful with blanket statements here. I agree with you on the first one. Global Warming does happen, and in many cases it is a natural occurance. The earth's average temperature has changed all through history. Science has determined periods of extreme cold and extreme heat, indicating that something is changing the earth's temperature. Now, I see both sides. The "global warming" camp says that our actions are changing the environment and that change is usually bad. Our very existance is based on good and predictable weather and aging.
The "there is no such thing" camp says that we don't have to worry about it, because there is no such thing. They say that whatever effect our technological advances are causing can be ignored because it is negligable.
Now, My sense tells me that perhaps we shouldn't be messing with the delicate balance that is nature. If this arguement is kept on a small scale, I would tend to lean slightly towards the global warming camp, based purely on facts and the idea that we shouldn't disturb things. However, we ARE disturbing things. We have changed the environment, we have mastered nature and advanced ourselves. This process is not going to magically reverse itself. Therefore, when the issue is highly politicized (as is usually the case), I will side with the "there is no such thing" camp. I feel that the "global warming" camp is just taking it way too far. They are acting without really considering what the outcome is. I don't think you can just say "all right, you factory are polluting way to much. Stop it, lower your pollution by 20% within 2 years or else." That would completely kill the factory. I am forced to side with the anti-global warming camp because they are just way too rabid.

II.
Just because it is prohibited doesn't mean it won't happen. I visited my girlfriend's house out in North East Louisiana, outside of Monroe. Out there are bunches of factories all over the place. Taxes are cheap, and there's lots of people that would love to have a factory job. Working in the factory is one of the best jobs a person can get out there. It's good stable work.
However, each factory puts out pollution. They're all along the bayou so they can dump their pollution in there. Invariable, some of this pollution will get back to your water source, no matter how hard you try. Sure, dumping is illegal, but what's to stop someone from doing it as long as they don't get caught.
If only one factory does it, maybe we can overlook it. The benefits are worth much more. If a few factories do it, maybe we can handle it. It's worth it, helps the community, and we can put in a better water system. If a whole bunch of factories do it, then it's bad. Very bad, because it's a cumulative thing, and will add up. In the end, these things in excess become bad. Just because it doesn't happen where you live doesn't mean it doesn't happen at all.

III.
This statement I disagree with partly. First, a statement of facts. This world is using oil. It is making many awesome products from it, but that doesn't deny the fact that it is using oil. Also, based on the evidence we have, scientists have told us that it is a non-renewable resource and one day it will run out.
The laws of thermodynamics and chemistry will tell us that combustion of oil converts the hydro-carbons in the oil into water, carbon dioxide and a few other waste products while releasing huge amounts of energy. We humans are harnessing that energy to do good things.
In the end, we are depleting oil. There can only be a certain amount of it, however much that amount is. The earth is only so big, and there are only so many places that oil can be. Even if the earth was entirely oil, and we were using it, in the end (and it would be a friggin long time later) we would use it up.
The problem I have with your statement is this: You say that the scientists do not know how much oil we have left. You then discount completely the fact that we will continue to use oil, and at an increasing rate, and say we don't have to worry about it. After you die, some else will worry about it.
We could hit the motherload of oil and be prosperous for 1000 more years burning it as much as we wanted. Bu in the end, someone would still have to deal with the problem of it running out.
Do not just pass the problem on to your kids. Do not just ignore it and say it is someone else's problem. Don't you hate it at work or at home where someone makes a mess and you have to clean it up? Maybe this guy says the wrong thing to a customer, now you have to come back and eat crow to make up for it. Don't you hate that? Now, amplify that issue, make it something that has a huge impact on every single life on this planet. Now, wouldn't you hate to be the one that has to deal with it? Please don't be so closed minded on this.
We already have to deal with stupidity in the Social Security system. The baby boomers have left us with the job of ensuring they get money. They paid money for other people, and now they are going to expect money in return. Well, there may not be as much as we all want. The children and the children's children of the baby boomers are the ones that have to clean up this stupid mess. It's going to be very tough, and we got here because no one had the fore-sight to figure out what was going to happen later on down the road. Don't be like that, please.

Tim

 

InfamousTim

With regard to blanket statements, remember the crux of what I have been saying, these are my beliefs not what I am stating as fact. Therefore, in my opinion global warming is indeed a total farce (I repeat my blanket statement).

1. Agreed. I adhere more to the school of thought that what we do to the earth is infinitesimal compared to natural occurences (i.e. volcanoes).

2. Agreed in part, but you are presupposing what you are attempting to prove (the argument that nothing can be done to stop deviants who irresponsbility dispose of their oil, thus oil changes MUST contaminate the environment). I disagree.

3. Agreed, I am not arguing that we will never run out of oil, but that the urgency of the situation is a farce (i.e. a ridiculous sham the premise of which depends upon a skillfully exploited situation). Just like a previous post said, estimates are again at the 50 year mark, just like 20 years ago. I feel that just as we discovered a use for oil, we will evolve to using something else, and there is no great urgency to do so. As I said in a previous post, I'm not ignoring "the problem", I'm saying there isn't an immediate problem to ignore in my opinion. And another presupposition, "You then discount completely the fact that we will continue to use oil, and at an increasing rate, and say we don't have to worry about it." There is no fact that we will continue to use oil at an increasing rate, and I didn't say we didn't have it worry about it. We will run out, we are exploring alternatives, and we will get there in time, but no need to explode at someone (not that you exploded) by suggesting a 3,000 mile oil change is a sin that will result in oil scarcity in 5 years. We are not currently on our last barrel of oil or even near it.

Good responses by the way, I enjoyed your post.

 

Thank you very much for your compliment and for not descending to petty name-calling. I very much appreciate that.
I must concede the third point to you. I feel that I got off track with my arguement and that when you explain it in the manner you just did, I agree with you. This is mostly correct. However, I feel that even the discomfort caused by yelling and screaming tree-huggers has helped to encourage the development of alternative fuels and alternative power sources. As much as I do not want to give them credit, they did scream and yell enough, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Have a great evening gentlemen, I must part and do homework now.

 

(2). That's the problem with the lack of formatting due to UBB code and not HTML being used. I put a double space between things are are supposed to be separate entities. Ipso facto, the energy usage and the pollution comments were 2 different ideas. The pollution thing was basically a response to someone's comment about the pollution create by combustion being significantly higher than that created by changing oil @3000miles vs. 5000 miles.

(3). The fact is that it takes energy to do the stuff that was listed. There's the fact that most of those processes aren't isentropic. There's the fact that most of those processes are 100% efficient. There's the fact that energy has to come from somewhere. etc..

(4). Exactly, so if you can save a bit here and there it will all add up to make the remaining resources last longer. You have to admit that resources are being used. You admitted that you don't know how much is left.

I guess I don't understand the "wait 'til the last minute, or traumatic event, before changing my ways" lifestyle. I'm alright financially, but I still save my money, cut coupons, etc... and I'll apply that to everything I do.

 

Corpsie

(2). My mistake, I guess. But did I fairly summarize that 1) you suggested the reprocessing oil does take energy, and 2) a certain amount of pollution results from burning fossil fuels (i.e. reprocessing that oil)?

(3). My mistake again. I interpreted the statement to mean that you were suggesting fossil fuel pollution (i.e. global warming) was a fact of thermodynamics, physics, etc.

(4). Agreed. I do save a bit here and I do believe it will all add up to make the remaining resources last longer. But I would not call someone who wants to do 3,000 mile oil changes short-sighted (I actually forget the reason you mentioned short-sighted, so if I misquoted you again I'm sorry, these are long posts), and I would not suggest that they are less environmentally concerned than I am when I change it at 5,000 or 7,500. Again, where we disagree is the forgone conclusion that there will be a "last minute" or "traumatic event." For numerous reasons (which I will list in a response if you wish, I feel bad all my posts are a mile long so I won't put them here), I believe that we will never come close to utilizing the last vestiges of the world's oil supply. Therefore, if I believe no crunch will ever come, why should I change my lifestyle?

You establish an excellent analogy, where we are both at different positions. You clip coupons, but may I suggest you get rid of your house or apartment and buy a van to live out of (or better yet sleep in a sleeping bag at a campsite). If you are married, take that ring off your wife's finger and sell it, and invest the money. Essentially, live like a pauper investing every cent you have. Why? Because you never know with the amounting costs of health care and long-term care, coupled with inflation whether you will have a enough to survive in your later years. You also do not know how long you will live.

Essentially, you have a fixed resource which you will have to deplete, and you have decided what the risks are (in your opinion) of running out of cash, and you have decided how you want to "hedge" those risks (i.e. clip or not clip coupons, invest aggressively or conservatively). Some people would call you a penny-pincher, some would probably call your lifestyle too ritzy. And you would probably feel taken aback if someone informed you that you WERE going to run out of money and that you MUST change your lifestyle. Again, in your opinion feel fairly assured you will not run out, so you see no reason to alter your behavior.

 

WOW it just took me about 15 min. to read all of this stuff.

dont worry i have my flame suit on.


i change every 3k miles

 

oil?