Hybrid Cars – Walter McManus on Sustainable Mobility

So far, my two favorite driving styles are what I call “GO, GO, GO, GO, GO, GO” (GGGGGG) and “SMOOTH AS SILK” (SAS). As you no doubt can tell from the names, they represent extremes of behavior.

While most hybrid drivers will tell you driving slower is better in hybrids, Walter McManus, in his analysis, seems to be telling you saving a few minutes on your commute is better than driving more carefully.

I’m not sure I buy his whole analysis, but you should take a look and decide for yourself. Personally, I take issues with his quality of life score as well his numbers for the probability of dying in a fiery crash. If you drive aggressively, you’re much more likely to have an accident, at the least. Even if you (or the person you hit) don’t die, the insurance nightmare that follows will surely shorten your life via the stress incurred.

I’m just not sure if he wrote this tongue-in-cheek or not.

---

More Hybrid Car information can be found at http://hybridreview.blogspot.com
Follow me on Twitter

There are many things to take into consideration when choosing nursery furniture. First, there is the style or theme that you will decorate the child’s nursery in. There are many ideas, styles, and décor choices readily available to ensure that every nursery has the finished look desired. However, it is also common for many nurseries to undergo a series of changes throughout the years. When choosing nursery furniture it is often best to choose styles that will easily blend and compliment a variety of themes. For instance, if you were decorating with a classic childhood character theme, it is better to choose furniture that is a solid color and use decorations to bring out the theme, rather than selecting nursery furniture that may be painted or permanently decorated with a specific theme. When you represent the style or theme of the nursery through items that are easily changed, and select nursery furniture that is solid, and in neutral colors, you can rest assured that if you decide to change the theme, your nursery furniture will fit right in.

A senior official with US aerospace giant Boeing urged aluminium suppliers Tuesday to bring additional rolling plate capacity online so the company could meet its expected aircraft demand. “This [aluminium] industry is a key component to our success. There’s no doubt about it,” said Brian Schmidt, raw materials strategist for Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

“We rely on you a great deal. Growing this capacity is critical to our long-term success. If we’re going to build all those planes, we’ve got to raise capacity,” Schmidt said during a presentation at the Platts Aluminium Symposium 2007 conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. “We need more rolling capacity.”

More rolling capacity is needed, Schmidt said, in part because Boeing has over the past 10 years moved more towards monolithic design rather than sheet metal build-up to plate because of its higher-quality, longer lasting, and lighter weight characteristics. “The market is demanding that we move in that direction.”

Schmidt noted that lead times in the aluminium industry currently average about 26 weeks. “That puts my production at risk. I have to manage that risk.” If a heat treatment or compressing mill went down, Boeing’s aircraft production would be affected. “We need your help to bring more capacity on line,” he said.

Boeing plans to roll out its new 787 Dreamliner in late June. The company has 36 announced customers for more than 450 aircraft, Schmidt said. The aircraft will replace Boeing’s older 757 and 767 jetliners now at the end of their service life.

Though the 757 and 767 are considered aluminium aircraft, the aluminium content in the 787 will equal or exceed that of the older aircraft. And while the Dreamliner will be built with composites as well as aluminium, “there is still a significant amount of demand for aluminium in this plane.”

Schmidt assured suppliers that composites would not be used in lieu of aluminium. “Aluminium is the optimal material for our aircraft,” he said. Moreover, the development of second- and third-generation alloys look promising.

“We continue to recommend and encourage you to develop those, qualify those as quickly as possible, and make those as cost-competitive as you possibly can to meet the challenge that other commodities are bringing online,” he said.

It’s cold, wet, dark and miserable outside – why on earth would you want to order new patio doors now?

If you have old patio doors, the chances are that you could improve the insulation qualities by having new ones installed. With the cost of fuel today, it wouldn’t take long to make savings go a long way towards the cost of the new bi folding doors.

SunSeeker bi folding door frames are made from thermally broken aluminium – this means that a good conductor of heat and cold becomes a poor conductor so that the inside of the door feels warm despite the near-freezing temperatures outside.

VAT goes up from 15% to 17.5% on 1st January 2010. Order your doors before then and you could save £75 or more. The VAT saving is approximately double the interest your money would earn if you left it in the bank until summer.

There is no doubt that modern bifolds are an investment in your property – an attractive enhancement that you can enjoy and, eventually, consider a vital selling point.

SunSeeker Doors are made to measure and made in England. We do not import cheap doors from China or Turkey. Our doors are made specifically to fit your measurements and, because we manufacture locally – including the powder-coating process, we can install your bifolding doors just days after receiving your order. And installation is often less than half a day!

We have been manufacturing and installing our bi folding doors for a number of years and have many happy customers, some of whom have been moved to write and tell us of their delight (testimonials and their photographs can be seen on our blog and web site).

We wish you a Happy New Year and a prosperous and peaceful 2010.

Part Two – Location

In the second part of this front door buying guide, I’m going to talk about the importance of considering the location of your door.
The location of your door includes several important factors:

• Appearance – does your new front door suit the style of your home? Does it fit in with your other doors and windows? Is there a colour scheme to consider?
• Climate – is your door exposed to strong daylight for most of the day? Is it near the coast? Does it bear the brunt of all weather conditions?
• Security – is your entrance hidden away or your home in a secluded area, where it may be easier for burglars to work on it unnoticed? Is your home in a high crime area?

From this list, you can see that the location of your front door plays several important roles in choosing the right door for your situation.

Front Door Appearance

If you have a period property, you don’t want to install a modern uPVC front door. Not only would it look unattractive and out-of-place, but no doubt it would reduce the overall value of your home. If your budget does not allow for a real wooden door, why not consider a door with a wood grain appearance, such as a composite door? Composite doors have a smart appearance that is not tacky like uPVC, but not expensive like wood.

For modern homes with uPVC windows, you can easily buy a uPVC door for cheap to match. uPVC doors may not suit your every need though, in which case you can buy composite doors with uPVC door frames, so that the door does not look out of place in your property.

Front Door Climate

Harsh climates really limit your options when it comes to buying a new front door. Entrances that are exposed to strong sunlight, heavy rain or blowing winds require a front door which can take the weather and last. You do not want to buy a door and find that five years of weathering has taken its toll and you need to replace the door again. Especially in coastal areas, where the usual weathering is mixed in with the abrasive sea salt, you should avoid wooden doors. Unless you wish to sand and paint your door on a regular basis and don’t mind rot setting in much earlier than it should. Although the surface of uPVC doors may fair better than wood, the flimsy construction can allow draughts and leaks in easily.

For the best protection against harsh elements, composite doors are incredibly tough and durable – the skin will not require maintenance or lose its shine and the door will not allow draughts and leaks into your home.

Front Door Security

Living in a secluded area, or having an entrance which is not in view of the world can make you feel vulnerable. It allows burglars the cover to work on your front door without being spotted. Installing security lights can help to protect you when you are home, alerting you of potential intruders, but what about when you’re out? Security lights would only provide more light for the potential attacker to work with.
Even if your home and entrance is in full view of the street, your entrance remains a vulnerability. Some doors, such as uPVC doors, have obvious weaknesses which can be seen by attackers with experience. These weaknesses can be taken advantage of very quickly by those who know how.

With both of these situations in mind, you really should choose a high security front door. If you’re in the UK, buying a Secured by Design door gives you the assurance that your door has the best security possible.

How to Choose a New Front Door | Part One – Why Plan Your New Front Door?

Introduction

I have intended to write this essay for a couple of months, but I have really struggled with what I wanted to write. Voters in California will decide on Proposition 87 in November. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who support this initiative, and even one who helped write the language of the initiative. Therefore, this essay is difficult to write, as it may offend some people whose friendship I value.

I have no doubt that this initiative will pass, but I have a lot of problems with the way this campaign is being run, and how oil companies are being vilified in order to win support for this measure. To be certain, oil companies are looking after their own best interests and those of their shareholders in opposing this measure. But I believe proponents are pumping out a steady stream of misinformation, even as they accuse the oil companies of doing so. I also think some of the proponents are very naïve if they don’t think this will increase gasoline prices in California. However, I would like to see gasoline prices go up to encourage conservation. Ultimately, my struggle is with whether the end justifies the means, and whether the money raised will be funneled into the most appropriate areas.

Background

Proposition 87, commonly known as the Clean Alternative Energy Initiative, will impose a new wellhead tax on California oil producers. This is essentially what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela – he decided he wanted a bigger slice of the petroleum pie and assessed additional taxes. At current prices, the new tax would amount to 6% of the value of a barrel of oil. If oil is selling for $75 a barrel, the tax on what the proponents call “excess profits” will amount to $4.50 per barrel. Proponents believe it will raise $4 billion in revenue from the oil companies, at no cost to consumers.

The initiative is being bankrolled by Vinod Khosla, and the proceeds will be directed primarily toward alternative energy, including Mr. Khosla’s ethanol interests. Mr. Khosla has said “just because I might benefit, doesn’t mean this isn’t a good idea.” True, but it creates a bit of a conflict of interest and gives rise to the potential that the funds raised will not be optimally deployed.

First, let me provide the links for the two opposing sides, so you can get more background information if you wish to do a bit of research:

Yes on 87

This is the website promoting the initiative, and they have lots of FAQs and background information. Opposing them, with their own set of FAQs is:

Californians Against Higher Taxes

Let me make it clear that I fully support alternative energy and conservation initiatives. However, not all alternative energy solutions are created equally. I have argued that corn ethanol, for instance, is undesirable for a number of reasons. Yet this initiative would funnel money toward corn ethanol, which is one reason I have a problem with it. It will help prop up an industry that already receives very generous government subsidies, while primarily just converting fossil fuels (natural gas, gasoline, diesel, coal) into ethanol. Corn ethanol promotes soil erosion, as well as herbicide and pesticide runoff into our waterways. On the other hand, the initiative would funnel money toward areas that I do support, like green electricity and biodiesel.

What Will Happen

I think the naïvety surrounding this initiative is stunning. Check out this passage from the Yes on Clean Energy site:

“Prop 87 would make oil companies — not consumers — pay their fair share for oil drilling, just like they do in Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma and even Texas. Oil prices will NOT increase. The California Attorney General has confirmed that Prop 87 makes it illegal for oil companies to pass the cost to consumers by spiking gas prices. And experts confirm the global markets won’t allow the oil companies to raise our gas prices either.”

This passage displays a stunning ignorance of how markets work, and how capital is allocated. Oil companies are going to be assessed $4 billion in new taxes, and consumers aren’t going to feel that? Please. Here is exactly what will happen. This is not speculation on my part; it is based on exactly how capital gets allocated.

When the initiative passes, oil companies will have a new tax to deal with in California. The returns on capital invested in California will drop, and it will be less profitable to extract oil in California. Each year oil companies determine where they will allocate capital to various refineries in the country based on expected returns on various projects. Refineries in various locations compete against each other for capital allocations, and now California will be at a bit of a disadvantage because they will be paying more for their crude. Not only will the returns from California be lower, but questions will arise as to when they might hold another initiative to increase the tax (ala Chavez). California refineries will get just a bit less of that capital, which over time will squeeze supplies. As gasoline capacity fails to keep up with demand, higher prices will result.

Now, pay attention to this next statement: One of the major proponents behind Prop 87 admitted to me that the scenario I laid out is likely, but he is counting on ethanol to step in and fill the gap. If you have followed my essays on ethanol, you know this is a great bit of wishful thinking. So, Californians will deal with higher gasoline prices. But guess what? I have no problem at all with that. It is the “truth in advertising” aspect of this that I have trouble with. And I also want to be able to say “I told you so.” The real irony of all of this, though, is that oil companies will be blamed for the higher prices and Prop 87 proponents will escape any accountability.

Paying Their Fair Share

Proponents have painted this initiative as a way to finally make oil companies pay their fair share in California. From a FAQ on the campaign:

“California deserves its fair share. Currently, oil companies pay California almost nothing to drill, while they pay billions of dollars in drilling fees to every other oil producing state. Prop 87 will set California’s oil drilling fees at levels similar to those in Oklahoma, Alaska, and Texas at no cost to consumers and with no increase at the pump. The California Attorney General has confirmed that Prop 87 makes it illegal for oil companies to raise gas prices to pass the cost of the fee to consumers.”

Here’s what proponents aren’t telling you. From Gasoline Taxes by State:

Oklahoma – $0.17/gallon
Alaska – $0.08/gallon
Texas – $0.20/gallon
California – $0.32/gallon

California has the 3rd highest state gasoline tax in the nation, behind only Hawaii and Nevada. I think California is getting their “fair share”, only they chose to get it in a way different from the other states mentioned. I would argue that having such a high gasoline tax has helped spur conservation more than if California had the $0.17 gallon tax of Oklahoma. This of course means oil companies are already paying a price by selling less product than they would if gasoline taxes were lower. The net revenue is probably about the same whether you have low gasoline taxes and an oil extraction tax, or high gasoline taxes and no oil extraction tax. What Prop 87 will do is put an oil extraction tax on top of one of the highest gasoline taxes in the country. That’s something proponents aren’t telling you.

Learning from History

Of course the U.S. has experimented in the past with windfall profits taxes. From a 1990 Congressional Research Service report:

“The windfall profits tax reduced domestic oil production between 3 and 6 percent, and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent. This made the U.S. more dependent upon imported oil.”

Of course in California’s case, it will reduce state oil production and increase imports from other states. It will make California more dependent on oil imports from other states. It will increase costs for California refiners. Even proponents have to understand that increasing the cost of oil produced in California is going to make importing oil into California more attractive.

Another article recently caught my eye. It deals with California’s many failed attempts at reducing petroleum dependence:

How California failed in efforts to curb oil addiction

Some interesting excerpts for those who are determined to repeat history:

“For a quarter century, California has pursued petroleum-free transportation more doggedly than any other place in the U.S. It has tried to jump-start alternative fuels ranging from methanol to natural gas to electricity to hydrogen. None has hit the road in any significant way. Today, the state that is the world’s sixth-largest economy finds itself in the same spot as most of the planet: With $75-a-barrel oil, and increasing concern about the role fossil fuels are playing in global warming, 99 percent of its cars and trucks still run on petroleum products.

Oil and auto companies say they’re justified in resisting government mandates to roll out alternative technologies when they’re not convinced consumers will buy them. Donald Paul, Chevron’s chief technology officer, says California regulators essentially tell industry officials, “We know what the answer is. You guys just spend the money and everything will work fine.” He adds, “History has not shown that that works very well.”

Proponents of oil alternatives are pressing ahead. An initiative set for California’s November ballot would hit oil companies with an “extraction fee” on every barrel of oil they pull out in California, a top oil-producing state. The fee would range from 1.5 percent to 6 percent of the oil’s value, depending on the prevailing per-barrel price. Backers say the measure would raise $4 billion, which would fund research into alternative-fuel technologies and incentives for consumers and fleets to buy alternative-fuel vehicles.

The initiative is bankrolled by entrepreneurs including Vinod Khosla, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who has been investing in ethanol and other alternative-energy businesses.”

The final paragraphs of that story really tell the tale of why proponents want to funnel more money into ethanol. Despite all of the government subsidies that the ethanol industry currently enjoys:

“Today there’s just one E85 station in California that is open to the public. It sits beside a highway interchange in San Diego. It was opened three years ago by Pearson Ford, a San Diego Ford dealer that was convinced alternative fuels would be the next big thing. The station offers gasoline and diesel, natural gas, propane, electricity, biodiesel and E85.

What it sells, though, is mostly gasoline and diesel. On a recent morning, it was offering E85 for $3.10 a gallon, about 6 percent less than the $3.30 per gallon it was charging for regular gasoline. But, because a gallon of E85 contains about 25 percent less energy than a gallon of gasoline, the E85 actually cost more per mile. Only a handful of cars pulled up to the E85 pump.

“I would like nothing better than to turn all my pumps over to alternative fuels,” says Mike Lewis, the station’s co-owner. “But I’m not willing to carry the alternative-fuel flag into bankruptcy.”

Promoting Hatred

This is where I have the biggest problem with the initiative. Proponents are using very inflammatory language to work voters up into a frenzy. This is nothing but demagoguery. In fact, Mr. Khosla wrote the following essay for The Huffington Post:

Big Oil’s Big Profits, and the Big Lies They’re Telling to Maintain Them

Of course the title is inflammatory enough, but the hypocrisy is what bothers me. Big oil is vilified for “big profits”, yet ethanol companies – which Mr. Khosla promotes – have far higher profit margins. An excerpt from the essay:

“It’s kind of like the tobacco companies that for years claimed that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. The oil interests are willing to publish any myth, and put any amount of money behind anyone who will support their untenable position.”

Following that essay, he wrote another:

The Big Oil Companies Have Been Ripping Californians Off — And Not Just at the Pump

Another inflammatory title, and more inflammatory rhetoric. Some excerpts:

“You thought you were being ripped off at the pump. You are, but that is only half of the story — the rip-off goes far beyond that.

As I blogged here previously, many of the big oil companies are raising prices at the pump while standing in the way of progress on immediately viable alternative fuels (while pretending through their vast network of slick lobbyists, consultants, ad agencies, PR firms and token investments, to be committed to alternative fuels) to lessen our oil dependence.

If the money and inside-Sacramento power of the big oil companies is going to allow them to rip Californians off, then certainly we Californians have the right, if not the duty, to join together and stand up for ourselves. But more on how they buy California (and National) politicians in a future blog (yes, post or email me your favorite big oil stories at vinod@yesoncleanenergy.com and I will feature them here).”

I honestly don’t believe there is any excuse for promoting this kind of animosity toward oil companies – even if you do stand to benefit financially from doing so. I am just waiting for the day that someone gets so wound up they decide to attack oil company employees on the way into work. It’s as if some people think that big oil companies are just a bunch of fat cats in an ivory tower plotting how to rip people off. In fact, oil companies are made of working men and women who sometimes give up their lives to make sure the gasoline keeps flowing. “Big Oil” is made up of the shareholders of oil companies, which span the gamut of backgrounds. So when hatred is spawned in the direction of “Big Oil”, these are the people who are the recipients of this hateful rhetoric. For the record, I have told Mr. Khosla that I disagree with these tactics. His response was “We will have to agree to disagree on this one.”

Conclusion

I don’t live in California, so I don’t have to vote on this initiative. There are some good aspects and some bad aspects, and forces on both sides are engaged in a pretty nasty campaign to win voters. The proponents needn’t worry. I think this initiative will comfortably pass because of the public animosity toward oil companies. I didn’t write this essay to influence undecided voters. I think the message of hope that Vinod Khosla is preaching is more readily accepted that anything the oil companies are saying. But my prediction is that after the tax is enacted, the gap between gas prices in California and the rest of the nation – already high – will increase a bit more. I am content with that outcome, but I have a feeling that a lot of Californians are going to feel like they have been ripped off.

It seems that every election season, conspiracy theories arise that the oil companies are trying to bring down gasoline prices in order to influence elections. The thinking is that oil companies tend to favor Republicans (true) and that they bring prices down to help Republican candidates. When I hear this sort of talk, I try to explain to people that U.S. oil companies control so little of the world oil market that there isn’t much they can do to influence prices. They simply don’t have the stroke that people think they have.

But a poll in 2006 showed that nearly half of Americans thought Bush had successfully manipulated prices down as the election approached:

Almost half of all Americans believe the November elections have more influence than market forces. For them, the plunge at the pump is about politics, not economics.

Retired farmer Jim Mohr of Lexington, Ill., rattled off a tankful of reasons why pump prices may be falling, including the end of the summer travel season and the fact that no major hurricanes have disrupted Gulf of Mexico output. “But I think the big important reason is Republicans want to get elected,” Mohr, 66, said while filling up for $2.17 a gallon. “They think getting the prices down is going to help get some more incumbents re-elected.”

No doubt that incumbents like to see gas prices falling ahead of an election. But having any power to influence price is a different matter. Since gas prices are once again falling as we head toward an election, I thought I would try to put this myth to rest. So, I decided to tabulate the price behavior of gasoline stretching back over the past three presidential elections. I chose to track the price from the beginning of summer driving season – Memorial Day – until the first part of November when the elections take place.

The results are shown below:

Table 1. Comparison of Gasoline Prices Between Memorial Day and Elections Source: Energy Information Administration

Personally, I think one would be hard-pressed to find a pattern there. The biggest price drop happened in a non-election year, albeit it was an anomaly caused by 9/11. Of the thirteen years recorded, gasoline prices fell between Memorial Day and November during nine of the years. This is what I generally tell people: Prices fall for seasonal reasons, and do so even when there are no elections. The reason prices fall is that demand for gasoline falls after the summer. The price generally peaks in early summer, and following Labor Day in early September the price falls.

Of the presidential election years, the price fell in 1996 when President Clinton was running for reelection, was essentially unchanged in 2000 and 2004 when President Bush ran against Al Gore and then John Kerry, and will almost certainly fall this year as oil prices pull back from their record highs.

In fact, if you take out the major anomalies on the graph – the slowdown caused by the 9/11 attacks, and the 2005 run-up of price in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, followed by easing in 2006 as refineries recovered, the truth is that gas prices usually don’t change dramatically – election year or not.

So why does this myth persist? There are a couple of reasons I can think of, but I think they generally fall under the category of confirmation bias. There really isn’t a strong pattern of gas price behavior (other than a stair-step up year after year); people just notice it in an election year. In addition, because prices rise and fall over the course of any year, you can always point to a price drop in an election year to support your biases. But if you use objective analyses (e.g., start and stop the price check on the same date every year) the non-pattern becomes obvious. Had I allowed my dates to be variable, no doubt I could have shown prices falling during any election year. Or, I could have shown them rising.

As for the idea that the president has that much power, all he can really do is go with his hat in hand and beg the Saudis to pump more oil in an attempt to ease prices. OPEC has indeed had historical pricing power, but even that is eroding as spare capacity dwindles. But the idea that Bush can pull any strings and get Big Oil to manipulate gas prices demonstrates that people give him, and Big Oil for that matter, far too much credit. Besides, as Joanne Shore, an analyst at the EIA noted in the previously linked article “What company in their right mind would step forward to kill their profit?”

Hmm. I am going to have to trademark “Peak Lite.” This viewpoint is gathering momentum. First the IEA, then the NPC, now the former chairman of Shell has come out and endorsed this view:

Oil industry ’sleepwalking into crisis’

Lord Oxburgh, the former chairman of Shell, has issued a stark warning that the price of oil could hit $150 per barrel, with oil production peaking within the next 20 years.

He accused the industry of having its head “in the sand” about the depletion of supplies, and warned: “We may be sleepwalking into a problem which is actually going to be very serious and it may be too late to do anything about it by the time we are fully aware.”

In an interview with The Independent on Sunday ahead of his address to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil in Ireland this week, Lord Oxburgh, one of the most respected names in the energy industry, said a rapid increase in the price of oil was inevitable as demand continued to outstrip supply. He said: “We can probably go on extracting oil from the ground for a very long time, but it is going to get very expensive indeed.

Commenting on whether “peak oil” – the point when global oil production goes into terminal decline – was likely to be reached in the near future, he said: “In a way it scarcely matters; what really matters is the gap between production and demand. I don’t know whether there is going to be a peak in world oil production, whether it’s going to plateau and then slowly come down.

It is hard for me to envision a scenario in which oil prices aren’t under severe pressure going forward. $150? Sure. Within 20 years? I have no doubt. Within 2 years as some are saying? I have a hard time seeing that, as people will start to respond as prices remain elevated.

I just read a story this morning suggesting that the “Cash for Clunkers” program is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by only a trivial amount:

‘Cash for clunkers’ effect on pollution? A blip

While the focus of the story is that this won’t do much for climate change, this is the piece that attracted my interest:

America will be using nearly 72 million fewer gallons of gasoline a year because of the program, based on the first quarter-million vehicles replaced. U.S. drivers go through that amount of gas every 4 1/2 hours, according to the Department of Energy.

In the context of the amount of gasoline we use – 140 billion or so gallons per year (a bit less now because of the recession) – this amounts to only 0.05% of our annual gas usage. Experts have suggested that making sure tires are properly inflated could save 3% on gas usage, or 60 times the amount saved by “Cash for Clunkers” if the majority of people are driving around on under-inflated tires.

So, for $1 billion invested in the program, a savings of 72 million gallons means we taxpayers paid $13.89 for each gallon of gasoline/yr saved. Readers know that I am a big fan of much higher fuel efficiency, but $13.89 to save a gallon of gasoline per year? While this benefit will be spread over several years of gasoline savings, surely we can do better than this.

Even if – as one reader suggested – those cars would have been on the road for another 10 years, you are still paying over a buck a gallon for the savings. No doubt that stimulus funds can stimulate in the short term, but what happens when the tax bill comes due? Will we look back on that as a wise use of those funds?