PDA

View Full Version : Gas prices in the U.S. by county........


John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 06:57 AM
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx

I'm just an average Joe and I can name 5 things that would lower the price of gas in the U.S. and reduce our eliminate our dependance on foreign / Arab oil.

1. Reduce the number of gas / oil formulations from 80 down to about 3. Making zillions of gas formulations is costly and gets passed on to the consumer.
2. Build more oil / gas refineries in the U.S. There haven't been new refineries built in the U.S. since the 70's. Our current refineries can't keep up with the demand.
3. Reduce the taxes on gas. Most people don't realize how much you are paying at the pump in taxes.
4. Drill in A.N.W.A.R. !!! Some say there is an oil reserve in Alaska almost as large as the Saudi Arabian oil reserve. Yes, it would take years before that oil would hit the market, but you've got to start sometime. Also, wouldn't that help reduce oil futures, which are driving up the cost now? The greenies and the dems won't allow Alaska oil exploration.
5. Allow off-shore drilling. Again, like Alaska, there's tons of oil out there and it's untapped. We can have our own oil for years if the democrats and the greenies would just let us tap into it.

There are other solutions too. I don't have a problem with them either. Some like to burn vegetable oil in their cars. Some want to go electric. Some want ethanol. Those are fine. I use ethanol blend once in a while. I just don't believe they are a long term, realistic solution that would fit the American lifestyle and business needs. Americans need to be Americans. To maintain ourselves as the greatest nation on earth, we need to have the freedom to move and travel and do commerce at a reasonable cost. Oil / gas is proven and there is plenty of it. We just need to tap it.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-24-2006, 07:18 AM
I'm a dem and I'm fine with Alaskan oil drilling... and dems haven't had control of congress in quite a while now anyway.

Dartgod
04-24-2006, 07:18 AM
The greenies and the dems won't allow Alaska oil exploration.

We can have our own oil for years if the democrats and the greenies would just let us tap into it.
Heading to the DC forum in 5...4...3...2...1...

John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 07:21 AM
I'm a dem and I'm fine with Alaskan oil drilling. Call your congressman.

Clint in Wichita
04-24-2006, 07:26 AM
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx

I'm just an average Joe and I can name 5 things that would lower the price of gas in the U.S. and reduce our eliminate our dependance on foreign / Arab oil.

1. Reduce the number of gas / oil formulations from 80 down to about 3. Making zillions of gas formulations is costly and gets passed on to the consumer.
2. Build more oil / gas refineries in the U.S. There haven't been new refineries built in the U.S. since the 70's. Our current refineries can't keep up with the demand.
3. Reduce the taxes on gas. Most people don't realize how much you are paying at the pump in taxes.
4. Drill in A.N.W.A.R. !!! Some say there is an oil reserve in Alaska almost as large as the Saudi Arabian oil reserve. Yes, it would take years before that oil would hit the market, but you've got to start sometime. Also, wouldn't that help reduce oil futures, which are driving up the cost now? The greenies and the dems won't allow Alaska oil exploration.
5. Allow off-shore drilling. Again, like Alaska, there's tons of oil out there and it's untapped. We can have our own oil for years if the democrats and the greenies would just let us tap into it.

There are other solutions too. I don't have a problem with them either. Some like to burn vegetable oil in their cars. Some want to go electric. Some want ethanol. Those are fine. I use ethanol blend once in a while. I just don't believe they are a long term, realistic solution that would fit the American lifestyle and business needs. Americans need to be Americans. To maintain ourselves as the greatest nation on earth, we need to have the freedom to move and travel and do commerce at a reasonable cost. Oil / gas is proven and there is plenty of it. We just need to tap it.

As I've said before: If oil companies really wanted to drill in ANWAR, the ocean, or the White House lawn, they would simply buy the necessary votes and do so.

Why would they want to get their oil from a stable, plentiful source when they can get it from the most unstable regions on Earth and gouge their customers in the process?

John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 07:31 AM
As I've said before: If oil companies really wanted to drill in ANWAR, the ocean, or the White House lawn, they would simply buy the necessary votes and do so.

Why would they want to get their oil from a stable, plentiful source when they can get it from the most unstable regions on Earth and gouge their customers in the process? = mumbo jumbo

Fried Meat Ball!
04-24-2006, 07:32 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

B.O.H.I.C.A. -- Bend Over, Here It Comes Again

Clint in Wichita
04-24-2006, 07:35 AM
= mumbo jumbo


Mumbo jumbo?

As in, you didn't "get" my post?

dr00d
04-24-2006, 07:36 AM
I'd just like to point out how obvious it is that Manhattan Gouges people for gas....fuc4ing bastards.

Dunit35
04-24-2006, 07:37 AM
How is a color blind person supposed to be able to read that?

John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 07:42 AM
I just heard on the radio that we all pay $.09 per gallon for oil company profit and about $.40 per gallon in taxes. So who is gouging us?

John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 07:43 AM
Mumbo jumbo?

As in, you didn't "get" my post? I get it. You just didn't say much.

morphius
04-24-2006, 07:50 AM
Eh, toss in another Congressional Hearing, since we know that Bush isn't about to step up to the plate on this issue, and that should lower gas prices for another 6 months.

Its like magic, everytime a President or Congress starts to take a look at the industry, they lower prices until the issue is forgotten. Just gotta love America's short term memory syndrome. Of course we could threaten to control its costs the same way we do with natural gas, since it is basically a utility, and force them to go through an approval process to raise prices.

Donger
04-24-2006, 07:51 AM
I don't disagree with most of that. I'm not sure what you mean by "allow off-shore drilling." We already drill off-shore.

And, unless something's changed, one of the nasty secrets about ethanol is it cannot be transported via pipeline; it has to be transported by truck or rail.

Donger
04-24-2006, 07:53 AM
I'm a dem and I'm fine with Alaskan oil drilling... and dems haven't had control of congress in quite a while now anyway.

The last vote was basically along party lines with a few defectors on both sides, but the basic stance is that Democrats oppose drilling in ANWR and Republicans favor it.

Saulbadguy
04-24-2006, 07:53 AM
Not worth bitching about anymore. Just drive less.

John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 08:09 AM
I don't disagree with most of that. I'm not sure what you mean by "allow off-shore drilling." We already drill off-shore.

And, unless something's changed, one of the nasty secrets about ethanol is it cannot be transported via pipeline; it has to be transported by truck or rail. You're right. I left that part out. There are specific areas, such as portions of the Gulf of Mexio where we aren't allowed to drill as of yet.

John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 08:10 AM
Not worth bitching about anymore. Just drive less. You are right. That is a solution. And if everyone did it, prices would come down.

morphius
04-24-2006, 08:10 AM
Not worth bitching about anymore. Just drive less.
Yeah, I'm sure work would be agreeable with that.

morphius
04-24-2006, 08:12 AM
You are right. That is a solution. And if everyone did it, prices would come down.
I don't know that I agree with that either. I think the people running the show have found a way to spike prices once a quarter for a period of time to show record profits, and would repeat it even if there was less demand.

Saulbadguy
04-24-2006, 08:16 AM
Yeah, I'm sure work would be agreeable with that.
You'd be surprised if you scrutinize every little trip you make.

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:18 AM
Yeah, I'm sure work would be agreeable with that.

You don't have any other alternatives at your disposal? Telecommute? Ride a bike? Carpool? Take the bus?

Bowser
04-24-2006, 08:19 AM
I'd like to know why there isn't a bigger push to explore hydrogen powered autos.

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:20 AM
I'd like to know why there isn't a bigger push to explore hydrogen powered autos.

"Oh the humanity!"

Rain Man
04-24-2006, 08:21 AM
I'm going to start driving to Natrona County, Wyoming, every time I need a fillup.

Bowser
04-24-2006, 08:22 AM
"Oh the humanity!"

ROFL

I guess there's that.....

morphius
04-24-2006, 08:24 AM
You don't have any other alternatives at your disposal? Telecommute? Ride a bike? Carpool? Take the bus?
Not so much, no. I had lived 4 miles away from work for the last 6 years, but they moved my offices so that instead of a 6-10 commute I'm looking at 40-50 minutes.

You can say I wasn't pleased. The only people that live by me also pick up their children after work, and I have to have the flexablity to get mine on occassion.

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:27 AM
Not so much, no. I had lived 4 miles away from work for the last 6 years, but they moved my offices so that instead of a 6-10 commute I'm looking at 40-50 minutes.

You can say I wasn't pleased. The only people that live by me also pick up their children after work, and I have to have the flexablity to get mine on occassion.

That's too bad.

jidar
04-24-2006, 08:27 AM
>>1. Reduce the number of gas / oil formulations from 80 down to about 3. Making zillions of gas formulations is costly and gets passed on to the consumer.

Yeah I'd agree with that. It's ridiculous.

>>2. Build more oil / gas refineries in the U.S. There haven't been new refineries built in the U.S. since the 70's. Our current refineries can't keep up with the demand.

Not a chance. Refinerys are ridiculously expensive and they take a long assed time to build. We would never see a return for the investment, and the oil supply would be down too much by the time they were ready. Terrible idea.

>>3. Reduce the taxes on gas. Most people don't realize how much you are paying at the pump in taxes.

Oh right, reduce taxes even more. As if the weak dollar and spiraling debt weren't already a pain in the ass. Plus it's just a small percentage of the cost of gas, even if taxes were cut in half you'd be paying what, $2.60 a gallon instead of $2.80? It's a bit of relief, but not much. Somebody has to pay for the roads.


>>4. Drill in A.N.W.A.R. !!! Some say there is an oil reserve in Alaska almost as large as the Saudi Arabian oil reserve. Yes, it would take years before that oil would hit the market, but you've got to start sometime. Also, wouldn't that help reduce oil futures, which are driving up the cost now? The greenies and the dems won't allow Alaska oil exploration.

Given the absolute wild/best estimates, ANWR would produce 600mil/bls per year. That's about 9% of the US energy needs. The reality is probably significantly less than that. I don't know where these ridiculous ideas about ANWR being enough oil to run our country come from. That said, I do believe we should drill ANWR, I just don't think it's as big a deal as people think it is.

>>5. Allow off-shore drilling. Again, like Alaska, there's tons of oil out there and it's untapped. We can have our own oil for years if the democrats and the greenies would just let us tap into it.

What? We've been doing that for a long time.

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:30 AM
Oh right, reduce taxes even more. As if the weak dollar and spiraling debt weren't already a pain in the ass. Plus it's just a small percentage of the cost of gas, even if taxes were cut in half you'd be paying what, $2.60 a gallon instead of $2.80? It's a bit of relief, but not much. Somebody has to pay for the roads.

Actually, taxation is the second largest part of the cost of gasoline, right after crude.

morphius
04-24-2006, 08:31 AM
That's too bad.
Eh, its only life, and you only have to deal with it once.

Rain Man
04-24-2006, 08:34 AM
"Oh the humanity!"


Many years ago, when I was in the defense industry, I went to a conference that discussed ways to help keep planes from going down when they're hit by bullets and missiles and other assorted things. Obviously, hits on fuel tanks are an issue (though not as much as you would think).

Anyway, during the course of the discussion, one fellow raised his hand and said, "How far away are we from developing a fuel that's not flammable?"

The expert who was speaking in the front of the room said, "It's fuel. It has to be flammable."

I thought that was pretty funny.

jidar
04-24-2006, 08:34 AM
Actually, taxation is the second largest part of the cost of gasoline, right after crude.

Second yes, but still comparitively small behind the cost of crude. It's what, .40/gal typically?

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:35 AM
Many years ago, when I was in the defense industry, I went to a conference that discussed ways to help keep planes from going down when they're hit by bullets and missiles and other assorted things. Obviously, hits on fuel tanks are an issue (though not as much as you would think).

Anyway, during the course of the discussion, one fellow raised his hand and said, "How far away are we from developing a fuel that's not flammable?"

The expert who was speaking in the front of the room said, "It's fuel. It has to be flammable."

I thought that was pretty funny.

ROFL

"Good help us. We're in the hands of engineers!"

jidar
04-24-2006, 08:36 AM
"How far away are we from developing a fuel that's not flammable?"



ROFL

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:38 AM
Second yes, but still comparitively small behind the cost of crude. It's what, .40/gal typically?

Depends on the state, of course, but yes, right around there. I think some states are playing with their taxation, too. I think Georgia temporarily halted all state tax after Katrina last year.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 08:38 AM
You do realize that if we raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards by 10% that it would save more oil than is in all of ANWAR. That 'oil field' is a bill of goods.

jidar
04-24-2006, 08:42 AM
You do realize that if we raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards by 10% that it would save more oil than is in all of ANWAR. That 'oil field' is a bill of goods.


That's what it will come to. Believe me, in 10 years we aren't all going to be running around in full sized trucks and suvs. We're so god damne wasteful now that there is a lot we can do to save on energy. Once it reaches a certain point we will do so out of necessity.
In the meanwhile we have to suffer from people who still want to project the problem on anything and everything else. ANWR, Taxes, Oil Companies, Government, War, Investors. All of these things are just scapegoats for the real source of the problem: Our wasteful consumption of a finite resource.

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:44 AM
You do realize that if we raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards by 10% that it would save more oil than is in all of ANWAR. That 'oil field' is a bill of goods.

First of all, it's "ANWR." Secondly, I'm stunned that ANYONE opposes drilling for oil on our own, controlled soil. No, ANWR is not the total answer. But, if we had access to that oil right now, our prices would be lower. I'm all for reducing demand, increasing efficiency and exploring alternatives, but as long as we get the majority of our crude from overseas, we have very little control and are competing for that crude on a global scale.

In short, why not do both? Drill ANWR and raise efficiencies? You don't oppose that, do you?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 08:44 AM
That's what it will come to. Believe me, in 10 years we aren't all going to be running around in full sized trucks and suvs. We're so god damne wasteful now that there is a lot we can do to save on energy. Once it reaches a certain point we will do so out of necessity.
In the meanwhile we have to suffer from people who still want to project the problem on anything and everything else. ANWR, Taxes, Oil Companies, Government, War, Investors. All of these things are just scapegoats for the real source of the problem: Our wasteful consumption of a finite resource.

I suggest you check out my 8k thread :D

BigMeatballDave
04-24-2006, 08:45 AM
I'd like to know why there isn't a bigger push to explore hydrogen powered autos.Shit. I've heard of people applying for patents for engines that run on water. Similar to hydrogen fuel cells. They just get pushed aside. As long as big oil keep shoving cash into politicians pocket, it is always gonna be this way...

Saulbadguy
04-24-2006, 08:46 AM
Let's invade all the countries that have alot of oil, and enslave the locals to produce crude for us.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 08:46 AM
First of all, it's "ANWR." Secondly, I'm stunned that ANYONE opposes drilling for oil on our own, controlled soil. No, ANWR is not the total answer. But, if we had access to that oil right now, our prices would be lower. I'm all for reducing demand, increasing efficiency and exploring alternatives, but as long as we get the majority of our crude from overseas, we have very little control and are competing for that crude on a global scale.

In short, why not do both? Drill ANWR and raise efficiencies? You don't oppose that, do you?

Actually I do oppose it, and I'll tell you why...it's a myopic look at the situation. It makes people believe that the way to solve oil dependency is just to drill more. That's stupid and shortsighted. The only way to solve dependency on a finite resource is to stop using said resource before it runs out and we have ass-f*cked ourselves. When you combine that with the detrimental environmental effects, and I don't see the point in it.

BigMeatballDave
04-24-2006, 08:48 AM
You do realize that if we raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards by 10% that it would save more oil than is in all of ANWAR. That 'oil field' is a bill of goods.**** OFF!!! I am not giving you 8 grand to drive my truck.

Bowser
04-24-2006, 08:49 AM
Shit. I've heard of people applying for patents for engines that run on water. Similar to hydrogen fuel cells. They just get pushed aside. As long as big oil keep shoving cash into politicians pocket, it is always gonna be this way...

Water, huh? That would probably be pretty clean burning.

What we really need is that "Mr. Fusion" thing from Back to the Future. Throw all your trash in the converter, and take a trip. That, or a system where an engine runs on urine. Long trips wouldn't be so bad anymore. But I wouldn't want to be the guy driving behind the car running on urine.

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:50 AM
Actually I do oppose it, and I'll tell you why...it's a myopic look at the situation. It makes people believe that the way to solve oil dependency is just to drill more. That's stupid and shortsighted. The only way to solve dependency on a finite resource is to stop using said resource before it runs out and we have ass-f*cked ourselves. When you combine that with the detrimental environmental effects, and I don't see the point in it.

Actually, I'd argue that you're being myopic. Unless we have a viable alternative within the next ten years or so, you're just sticking your head in the dirt.

What kind of car you drive, anyway?

Bowser
04-24-2006, 08:52 AM
Let's invade all the countries that have alot of oil, and enslave the locals to produce crude for us.

What are you, a republican?

HEY-OH!!

morphius
04-24-2006, 08:52 AM
Actually, I'd argue that you're being myopic. Unless we have a viable alternative within the next ten years or so, you're just sticking your head in the dirt.

What kind of car you drive, anyway?
I believe he drives a gas guzzling minivan.

Donger
04-24-2006, 08:52 AM
Shit. I've heard of people applying for patents for engines that run on water. Similar to hydrogen fuel cells. They just get pushed aside. As long as big oil keep shoving cash into politicians pocket, it is always gonna be this way...

Absolutely! I heard that they had plans for a 200 mpg carburetor once, too. But big oil crushed the plans.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 08:54 AM
Actually, I'd argue that you're being myopic. Unless we have a viable alternative within the next ten years or so, you're just sticking your head in the dirt.

What kind of car you drive, anyway?

I'm being myopic because I'm trying to stop our dependency on oil?? Furthermore, it can be conclusively proven that ANWR will not give us any form of sizeable help in our oil supply. It is a waste of time and an unnecessary deflection, much like your reply.

Saulbadguy
04-24-2006, 08:57 AM
What are you, a republican?

HEY-OH!!
http://starwars.wikia.com/images/1/11/Implogo.jpg

jidar
04-24-2006, 08:59 AM
I'm being myopic because I'm trying to stop our dependency on oil?? Furthermore, it can be conclusively proven that ANWR will not give us any form of sizeable help in our oil supply. It is a waste of time and an unnecessary deflection, much like your reply.

That's horseshit man. There is oil there and it is enough to have a measurable impact. As prices climb and supplies dwindle, it will become even more important. ANWR will definately be drilled some day, you can bank on that, the question is when not if.
It's not a magic bullet though.

Look at it this way, once ANWR has been drilled then what will people have to bitch about? Maybe they'd finally be forced to face the reality that oil will run out some day in their lifetimes? I'd just as soon we got the drilling underway so we could move on.

Donger
04-24-2006, 09:02 AM
I'm being myopic because I'm trying to stop our dependency on oil?? Furthermore, it can be conclusively proven that ANWR will not give us any form of sizeable help in our oil supply. It is a waste of time and an unnecessary deflection, much like your reply.

No. You're being myopic because you're not dealing with realities, but with fancies. We do NOT HAVE an alternative to gasoline at present, nor is one around the corner. Therefore, we must keep the crude flowing while pursuing alternatives and trying to reduce demand.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 09:02 AM
That's horseshit man. There is oil there and it is enough to have a measurable impact. As prices climb and supplies dwindle, it will become even more important. ANWR will definately be drilled some day, you can bank on that, the question is when not if.
It's not a magic bullet though.

Look at it this way, once ANWR has been drilled then what will people have to bitch about? Maybe they'd finally be forced to face the reality that oil will run out some day in their lifetimes? I'd just as soon we got the drilling underway so we could move on.

Do you really think that oil lobbyists wouldn't just find another place so that they could keep stringing us on? As I said before, ANWR drilling would make no more of an impact than a 10% increase in fuel efficiency standards.

Dartgod
04-24-2006, 09:04 AM
I'm being myopic because I'm trying to stop our dependency on oil??You aren't doing anything except whining about gas guzzling vehicles on an internet BB.

Unless, of course, you can provide copies of letters you sent to your political representitives outlining your SUV "luxury tax".

BigMeatballDave
04-24-2006, 09:05 AM
That's what it will come to. Believe me, in 10 years we aren't all going to be running around in full sized trucks and suvs. We're so god damne wasteful now that there is a lot we can do to save on energy. Once it reaches a certain point we will do so out of necessity.
In the meanwhile we have to suffer from people who still want to project the problem on anything and everything else. ANWR, Taxes, Oil Companies, Government, War, Investors. All of these things are just scapegoats for the real source of the problem: Our wasteful consumption of a finite resource.
:BS: In Dec. 2003, about 2 weeks before Christmas, I can recall paying about $1.30/gal. for gasoline. Our 'wasteful consumption' has little to do with it. Are you trying to tell me that we've wasted so much in 2 1/2 years to justify a 100%+ increase over that time?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 09:08 AM
No. You're being myopic because you're not dealing with realities, but with fancies. We do NOT HAVE an alternative to gasoline at present, nor is one around the corner. Therefore, we must keep the crude flowing while pursuing alternatives and trying to reduce demand.

Hybrid vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, electricity-powered vehicles--these are all feasible realities that have been constructed as fancies by the discourse controlled by big oil and its pocketed politicos.

jidar
04-24-2006, 09:13 AM
:BS: In Dec. 2003, about 2 weeks before Christmas, I can recall paying about $1.30/gal. for gasoline. Our 'wasteful consumption' has little to do with it. Are you trying to tell me that we've wasted so much in 2 1/2 years to justify a 100%+ increase over that time?

It's been a long time coming, but price increases in the face of supply not meeting demand are drastic and sudden.

Donger
04-24-2006, 09:13 AM
Hybrid vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, electricity-powered vehicles--these are all feasible realities that have been constructed as fancies by the discourse controlled by big oil and its pocketed politicos.

Actually, I agree on fuel cells, although we'd have to figure out a way of getting the hydrogen out to folks.

Hybrids are fine, but they still use gasoline. Great for reducing demand if deployed in vast numbers (and people are willing to sacrifice performance).

Electricity-powered vehicles? You mean solar?

BigMeatballDave
04-24-2006, 09:16 AM
Absolutely! I heard that they had plans for a 200 mpg carburetor once, too. But big oil crushed the plans.I take it you don't buy it. I guess hydrogen fuel cells don't work, either...

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 09:17 AM
Actually, I agree on fuel cells, although we'd have to figure out a way of getting the hydrogen out to folks.

Hybrids are fine, but they still use gasoline. Great for reducing demand if deployed in vast numbers (and people are willing to sacrifice performance).

Electricity-powered vehicles? You mean solar?

Solar+Batteries for one. I'd vastly prefer hydrogen, but I think Electric vehicles would be great for people who live w/in major cities and do a lot of stop and go driving, as the batteries are charged by the energy of braking.

Per Wiki:

All-electric cars are more popular in Europe than in the U.S. The major U.S. automobile manufacturers argue that customer demand for pure electric cars is small. In addition, the long suburban commutes common in the U.S. make range an important criterion for electric vehicle design. However, if advances in battery technology allow increased range at comparable cost to gasoline-powered vehicles, manufacturers will likely mass-market electric vehicles. The relative cost of gasoline to an equivalent amount of electrical energy will also be a critical factor in the electric vehicle market.

Donger
04-24-2006, 09:20 AM
Solar+Batteries for one. I'd vastly prefer hydrogen, but I think Electric vehicles would be great for people who live w/in major cities and do a lot of stop and go driving, as the batteries are charged by the energy of braking.

Per Wiki:

All-electric cars are more popular in Europe than in the U.S. The major U.S. automobile manufacturers argue that customer demand for pure electric cars is small. In addition, the long suburban commutes common in the U.S. make range an important criterion for electric vehicle design. However, if advances in battery technology allow increased range at comparable cost to gasoline-powered vehicles, manufacturers will likely mass-market electric vehicles. The relative cost of gasoline to an equivalent amount of electrical energy will also be a critical factor in the electric vehicle market.

I'm unfamiliar with a non-hybrid, electric-only that is capable of regenerative braking. Do you have a link?

morphius
04-24-2006, 09:22 AM
I'm still sticking with my idea that biodiesel is the way to go, especially with hydraulic launch technology (stores of the energy used to stop the car to help the car take off from the stop). Toss in a regular hybrid engine, engineered to also allow it to be plugged in to run off electric, but still allows the ability to run off of the biodiesel if you are somewhere that you can't charge up the vehicle.

Plus the hydraulic technology needs larger vehicles, because it takes up a bit of space, so people don't have to give up big vehicles.

All the technology is there to allow regular range comuters get over 100mpg without having to really change their habits at all, which is what American's are really asking for. And you have to figure with that kind of milage available we should be able to meet the needs with 100% bio fuels.

John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 09:22 AM
No. You're being myopic because you're not dealing with realities, but with fancies. We do NOT HAVE an alternative to gasoline at present, nor is one around the corner. Therefore, we must keep the crude flowing while pursuing alternatives and trying to reduce demand. :clap:

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 09:35 AM
Donger, here's a link, there are more

http://www.unc.edu/~lcrawfor/

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 09:35 AM
Here's a patent app for a golf cart w/ regenerative braking:

http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-CIMAGES/view/pct/getbykey5?KEY=01/50587.010712

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 09:37 AM
Here's a modified VW rabbit w/ electric motor and regen braking:

http://www.mrsharkey.com/rabbit.htm

Donger
04-24-2006, 09:39 AM
Donger, here's a link, there are more

http://www.unc.edu/~lcrawfor/

Unless I missed it, even the all-electric vehicles in that link still need to be 'plugged-in.' In other words, there is no all electric vehicle that uses regenerative braking as its only power source, yes?

Donger
04-24-2006, 09:40 AM
Here's a patent app for a golf cart w/ regenerative braking:

http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-CIMAGES/view/pct/getbykey5?KEY=01/50587.010712

ROFL

A golf cart?

Donger
04-24-2006, 09:50 AM
Heh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=ArwiPKtu8kZM1uiX5mQ1jgms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-

WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif. -
President Bush had an Earth Day message for drivers worried about soaring gasoline prices: The nation must move more quickly toward widespread use of hydrogen-powered cars.

Running vehicles on hydrogen fuel cells would help reduce oil consumption, as the technology does not require gasoline, and lower pollution, as they emit only water. But the technology is far from being a reality in the marketplace — the cells are prohibitively expensive and require a new distribution system to replace today's gas stations.

Bush is proposing to spend additional federal research dollars to help speed that process — but it still would be many years off.

Dartgod
04-24-2006, 09:52 AM
I'm being myopic because I'm trying to stop our dependency on oil??Once again, besides posting your ridiculous ideas on this BB, what are you doing to stop our dependency on oil?

Have you written your congressman or senator? What about the automobile makers? Have you contacted them?

morphius
04-24-2006, 09:56 AM
Heh.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060423/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=ArwiPKtu8kZM1uiX5mQ1jgms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-

WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif. -
President Bush had an Earth Day message for drivers worried about soaring gasoline prices: The nation must move more quickly toward widespread use of hydrogen-powered cars.

Running vehicles on hydrogen fuel cells would help reduce oil consumption, as the technology does not require gasoline, and lower pollution, as they emit only water. But the technology is far from being a reality in the marketplace — the cells are prohibitively expensive and require a new distribution system to replace today's gas stations.

Bush is proposing to spend additional federal research dollars to help speed that process — but it still would be many years off.
Thats what is annoying, spend money on a technology that will be 10 years off, or spend it on what I suggested with technologies already available and ready to use?

Ari Chi3fs
04-24-2006, 09:59 AM
my company pays for my gas... so **** you all.

Rain Man
04-24-2006, 10:01 AM
my company pays for my gas... so **** you all.

There goes your raise this year.

Rain Man
04-24-2006, 10:03 AM
Moderately unrelated story: many years ago, I knew a guy who was on a B-52 crew. He said that at the end of the fiscal year, they'd be up in the air constantly on training flights, because if they didn't use their entire fuel budget, the budget would be cut the next year. Nice to know that they were looking out for taxpayers.

Cochise
04-24-2006, 10:03 AM
I HEARD IF YUO ONLE BUY HALFF A TANK AT A TIEM TEH OIL COMPANNIES WILL GO OUT OF BIZZNESS N SELL GAS AT $0.32 A GALLIN OMGLOLWTFBBG!!!!!!11111111oneone

Donger
04-24-2006, 10:05 AM
Thats what is annoying, spend money on a technology that will be 10 years off, or spend it on what I suggested with technologies already available and ready to use?

I must have missed what you suggested. What was it?

Personally, I think fuel cells are the technology of choice. Let's just commit to it and get it rolling. They work well, the use no fossil fuel and the only emission is water.

Ironically, part of the problem is that there are too many alternatives being thrown around. Of them all, fuel cells are best option IMO.

They are too expensive right now, but that'd come down if we began mass production. We'd also have to swap out every gas station to pump out hydrogen. I remember reading that Honda came up with an at-home hydrogen station that ran off natural gas some time ago.

jiveturkey
04-24-2006, 10:17 AM
I'm with Donger.

As for the current tax issue. Even if we cut the taxes on gas it's going to come out of our asses some other way.

picasso
04-24-2006, 10:23 AM
I just heard on the radio that we all pay $.09 per gallon for oil company profit and about $.40 per gallon in taxes. So who is gouging us?

THAT is bullshit. There are more oil company profits taken out of the cost per gallon than that.

Distribution cost, Marketing cost AND profits: .05 (SEE PROFIT?)

Crude Oil cost: $1.67 (Oil company can raise or lower as to market value)

Refinery cost AND profits: .74 (SEE PROFIT?)

State and local taxes: .21 (varies as to what state)

State Excise tax: .18 (a gimmie)

Federal tax: .18 (a gimmie)

As far as drilling in Alaska, you guys are friggin idiots. It's not just about killing wildlife and damaging thousands of acres of untouched country it's also about eating that last cookie in the jar.
Many countries such as Japan purchase our exports such as trees and never use them. They submerge them in their bays and stock pile them. Why? because they do not have any friggin trees that's why!!! You have to treat oil in the same manner. You never use your own when you can have control of price over a foreign world resource.
Recently there has been the beginning of merging of oil companies. When that happens it is because the oil reserves in the middle east are beginning to dry up. The rise in cost is not just because of threats of war from Bush towards Iran, it's also because of the fact that the leading oil producing countries are running out. Those countries such as Iraq and Iran are currently salt water blasting in those high producing fields that have been their major producers of crude. That is why Sadam was cross drilling into Saudi's oil reserve. He was running out!
It is inevitable that we are going to use our own supply but as long as we can get it NOT only from the middle east but also South America (where the price of crude has dropped in price) I say use up the rest of the worlds supply before our own. If we tap into our own supply though, we will become a seller in the world market of crude to other countries such as China and Latin America who have become growingly dependent. We will not benefit in the lowering of the price today either because of it's benchmark. And if we become a seller, because the U.S. doesn't set caps for profits of oil companies or refinerys, then caps will never happen.

Donger
04-24-2006, 10:28 AM
THAT is bullshit. There are more oil company profits taken out of the cost per gallon than that.

Distribution cost, Marketing cost AND profits: .05 (SEE PROFIT?)

Crude Oil cost: $1.67 (Oil company can raise or lower as to market value)

Refinery cost AND profits: .74 (SEE PROFIT?)

State and local taxes: .21 (varies as to what state)

State Excise tax: .18 (a gimmie)

Federal tax: .18 (a gimmie)

As far as drilling in Alaska, you guys are friggin idiots. It's not just about killing wildlife and damaging thousands of acres of untouched country it's also about eating that last cookie in the jar.
Many countries such as Japan purchase our exports such as trees and never use them. They submerge them in their bays and stock pile them. Why? because they do not have any friggin trees that's why!!! You have to treat oil in the same manner. You never use your own when you can have control of price over a foreign world resource.
Recently there has been the beginning of merging of oil companies. When that happens it is because the oil reserves in the middle east are beginning to dry up. The rise in cost is not just because of threats of war from Bush towards Iran, it's also because of the fact that the leading oil producing countries are running out. Those countries such as Iraq and Iran are currently salt water blasting in those high producing fields that have been their major producers of crude. That is why Sadam was cross drilling into Saudi's oil reserve. He was running out!
It is inevitable that we are going to use our own supply but as long as we can get it NOT only from the middle east but also South America (where the price of crude has dropped in price) I say use up the rest of the worlds supply before our own. If we tap into our own supply though, we will become a seller in the world market of crude to other countries such as China and Latin America who have become growingly dependent. We will not benefit in the lowering of the price today either because of it's benchmark. And if we become a seller, because the U.S. doesn't set caps for profits of oil companies or refinerys, then caps will never happen.

No, it really is right around a dime per gallon.

oldandslow
04-24-2006, 10:32 AM
Hydrogen has some very large problems that are going to have to be dealt with before we ever tap it. Not the least of which is transporting the stuff.

The real problem is that NOTHING has ever been found to have oil's energy efficiency. It is a miracle resource...

It is also finite.

That being said, we should be using it to implement alternatives rather than wasting it.

A national conservation and development program should have been started yesterday....or more realistically, years ago.

It was the one thing Jimmy Carter was correct about.

picasso
04-24-2006, 10:32 AM
No, it really is right around a dime per gallon.

No, It's not.

Rain Man
04-24-2006, 10:33 AM
Let's invade all the countries that have alot of oil, and enslave the locals to produce crude for us.

It worked with Oklahoma.

picasso
04-24-2006, 10:33 AM
Hydrogen has some very large problems that are going to have to be dealt with before we ever tap it. Not the least of which is transporting the stuff.

The real problem is that NOTHING has ever been found to have gasoline's energy efficiency. It is a miracle resource...

It is also finite.

That being said, we should be using it to implement alternatives rather than wasting it.

A national conservation and development program should have been started yesterday....or more realistically, years ago.

It was the one thing Jimmy Carter was correct about.

Agreed!

Donger
04-24-2006, 10:34 AM
No, It's not.

Yes, it really, really is.

morphius
04-24-2006, 10:35 AM
I must have missed what you suggested. What was it?

Personally, I think fuel cells are the technology of choice. Let's just commit to it and get it rolling. They work well, the use no fossil fuel and the only emission is water.

Ironically, part of the problem is that there are too many alternatives being thrown around. Of them all, fuel cells are best option IMO.

They are too expensive right now, but that'd come down if we began mass production. We'd also have to swap out every gas station to pump out hydrogen. I remember reading that Honda came up with an at-home hydrogen station that ran off natural gas some time ago.
I would want them to continue work on fuel cells, but I really don't know what kind of performance they can expect from there.

But basically impliment 3 things in cars:
1) biodiesel
2) Include an electric hybrid with plug in ability to charge.
3) Use the hydraulic technology that charges up on breaking to help with launch, took a F-150 to 60 MPG.

I think this gets us the best of all worlds, until fuel cells are ready. Biodiesel is renewable, and doesn't rely on any third world country to supply it. Plus diesel just gets better gas millage, there is no way around it.

We have seen where people have taken their hybrids and added the plug in ability to charge before driving and I think went on pure electric for a mighty large chunk before switching over to using the gas engine. Also having the gas engine available would mean that you wouldn't have to have it plugged in, you just wouldn't get to go as far on a tank.

The hydraulic tech is an added bonus as it requires the vehicle to be larger to handle the system needed to do it, so people don't have to change the style of vehicles that they drive. Plus it would piss off all the greenies because you could get better millage in your big truck then they can in their little golf cart.

picasso
04-24-2006, 10:45 AM
Yes, it really, really is.

So you believe that half of oil company profits, per gallon of gas, come from distribution and marketing?

I disagree with you.

Alton deFlat
04-24-2006, 10:50 AM
In case this hasn't ben posted.... just put your zip code in the box, and find the gas prices in your area... or any other area.

Gas Prices (http://autos.msn.com/everyday/gasstations.aspx?zip=&src=Netx)

Donger
04-24-2006, 10:51 AM
So you believe that half of oil company profits, per gallon of gas, come from distribution and marketing?

I disagree with you.

No.

Approximately 18% of what you pay for a gallon of gasoline is refining cost and profits.

Clint in Wichita
04-24-2006, 10:58 AM
I don't know what it proves, but Exxon/Mobil just passed Wal-Mart for the title of "biggest fuggin' company on the planet".

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-24-2006, 11:02 AM
ROFL

A golf cart?

I see you chose to completely ignore the physics of the article...and you completely disregarded the third link that I posted, which showed an electric motor w/ regenerative braking that worked in a standard automobile. :shake:

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 11:03 AM
I don't disagree with most of that. I'm not sure what you mean by "allow off-shore drilling." We already drill off-shore.

And, unless something's changed, one of the nasty secrets about ethanol is it cannot be transported via pipeline; it has to be transported by truck or rail.That is what I keep telling people who will listen. Then they all give me a blank, deer in the headlights stare.

Like that Jack in the box dude, "thats what I was thinking"

There is a whole lot more to haveing Gas available at every major intersection, ON DEMAND, than just the price of a barrel of oil.

Donger
04-24-2006, 11:03 AM
I see you chose to completely ignore the physics of the article...and you completely disregarded the third link that I posted, which showed an electric motor w/ regenerative braking that worked in a standard automobile. :shake:

And I see that that Rabbit needed to be plugged into the grid at night. Or perhaps you didn't understand my question in the first place.

Clint in Wichita
04-24-2006, 11:04 AM
No, it really is right around a dime per gallon.


Then why do all of major oil companies record record profits when prices at the pump jump up?

Bowser
04-24-2006, 11:05 AM
In case this hasn't ben posted.... just put your zip code in the box, and find the gas prices in your area... or any other area.

Gas Prices (http://autos.msn.com/everyday/gasstations.aspx?zip=&src=Netx)

Anyone live in or around Tulsa? Get to the Quik Mart at 223 S. Utica and fill up. It's still only ( :shake: ) 2.39 a gallon there.

Donger
04-24-2006, 11:10 AM
Then why do all of major oil companies record record profits when prices at the pump jump up?

Because the cost of their primary source material (crude oil) has incresed dramatically yet their production costs (refining) have not increased = greater profit margins.

Donger
04-24-2006, 11:12 AM
Because the cost of their primary source material (crude oil) has incresed dramatically yet their production costs (refining) have not increased = greater profit margins.

And, I should mention that it's a common misconception that the price of gasoline is integral to oil company profits. It is somewhat, but they make their money in the refining process itself. Lot's of other goodies come out of a barrel of crude, not just gasoline.

ChiefsCountry
04-24-2006, 11:12 AM
How come I get a picture in my head of 80's tv shows everytime I think of oil companies?

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 11:19 AM
Because the cost of their primary source material (crude oil) has incresed dramatically yet their production costs (refining) have not increased = greater profit margins.Oil companies don't deserve to make profits.

I heard it reported the other day, that adjusted for inflation, the price of oil hit 83 dollars a barrel back in the 70's oil shock.

Worse, you couldn't buy gas. The stations were empty. God forbid that now, the people would kill each other over it.

Back then it was just a few fist fights. Now, big honking Denali driver and her diamond ear rings will DEMAND to be in line FIRST in front of all the little hybrid cars.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 11:20 AM
And, I should mention that it's a common misconception that the price of gasoline is integral to oil company profits. It is somewhat, but they make their money in the refining process itself. Lot's of other goodies come out of a barrel of crude, not just gasoline.Nooooo!

John_Wayne
04-24-2006, 11:23 AM
THAT is bullshit. There are more oil company profits taken out of the cost per gallon than that.

Distribution cost, Marketing cost AND profits: .05 (SEE PROFIT?)

Crude Oil cost: $1.67 (Oil company can raise or lower as to market value)

Refinery cost AND profits: .74 (SEE PROFIT?)

State and local taxes: .21 (varies as to what state)

State Excise tax: .18 (a gimmie)

Federal tax: .18 (a gimmie)

As far as drilling in Alaska, you guys are friggin idiots. It's not just about killing wildlife and damaging thousands of acres of untouched country it's also about eating that last cookie in the jar.
Many countries such as Japan purchase our exports such as trees and never use them. They submerge them in their bays and stock pile them. Why? because they do not have any friggin trees that's why!!! You have to treat oil in the same manner. You never use your own when you can have control of price over a foreign world resource.
Recently there has been the beginning of merging of oil companies. When that happens it is because the oil reserves in the middle east are beginning to dry up. The rise in cost is not just because of threats of war from Bush towards Iran, it's also because of the fact that the leading oil producing countries are running out. Those countries such as Iraq and Iran are currently salt water blasting in those high producing fields that have been their major producers of crude. That is why Sadam was cross drilling into Saudi's oil reserve. He was running out!
It is inevitable that we are going to use our own supply but as long as we can get it NOT only from the middle east but also South America (where the price of crude has dropped in price) I say use up the rest of the worlds supply before our own. If we tap into our own supply though, we will become a seller in the world market of crude to other countries such as China and Latin America who have become growingly dependent. We will not benefit in the lowering of the price today either because of it's benchmark. And if we become a seller, because the U.S. doesn't set caps for profits of oil companies or refinerys, then caps will never happen. It was on the news. Take it up with them. Taxes are way more than oil company profits.

StcChief
04-24-2006, 11:24 AM
Oil companies don't deserve to make profits.

I heard it reported the other day, that adjusted for inflation, the price of oil hit 83 dollars a barrel back in the 70's oil shock.

Worse, you couldn't buy gas. The stations were empty. God forbid that now, the people would kill each other over it.

Back then it was just a few fist fights. Now, big honking Denali driver and her diamond ear rings will DEMAND to be in line FIRST in front of all the little hybrid cars.

Gas lines down the street....

One guy 'raised the hose' to squeeze out a little more...look out all hell breaks loose, fights, screaming ranting etc. Very scary at times.

Now owning and demanding from a BIG SUV could get you killed.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 11:29 AM
You do realize that if we raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards by 10% that it would save more oil than is in all of ANWAR. That 'oil field' is a bill of goods.Personally, I am all for it. But, do you really want to drive the final nail in GM's coffin? The only thing the dipchits can build, that people demand, is friggin heavy trucks and SUV's.

The marketplace will sort this out. You should be happy that gas prices are going up, it will punish all the SUV owners for their decadence.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 11:36 AM
Actually I do oppose it, and I'll tell you why...it's a myopic look at the situation. It makes people believe that the way to solve oil dependency is just to drill more. That's stupid and shortsighted. The only way to solve dependency on a finite resource is to stop using said resource before it runs out and we have ass-f*cked ourselves. When you combine that with the detrimental environmental effects, and I don't see the point in it.All the more reason to raise the price of said scarce resource until the ass f*cking bleeds?

BigMeatballDave
04-24-2006, 11:39 AM
And, I should mention that it's a common misconception that the price of gasoline is integral to oil company profits. It is somewhat, but they make their money in the refining process itself. Lot's of other goodies come out of a barrel of crude, not just gasoline.Yup. I used to think a barrel was 55 gal. Its 42 gal. The yield on gasoline is 19.5 gal./barrel, I think...

BigMeatballDave
04-24-2006, 11:59 AM
I though this was interesting...

The amount of gasoline that can be distilled from crude depends on where the crude is obtained. Venezuelan crude yields little gasoline (about 5%), whereas Texas or Arabian crude yields about 30% gasoline. This is called "straight run" gasoline. However, the distilled components of the crude oil can be further processed into gasoline by various other methods (catalytic and thermal cracking, hydrocracking, catalytic reforming, alkylation, and polymerization) to yield even more gasoline.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 12:14 PM
It's been a long time coming, but price increases in the face of supply not meeting demand are drastic and sudden.Frankly, price increases for a real commodity were way over due.

When gas was 99 cents / gallon in the early 80's, what was the median price of homes? What was the price of an average 4 door sedan/ light truck?


What was the total supply of money(M2) that was held in the economy in 82 vs 06?

Your 20 dollar bill doesn't go as far as it did back then, please, do you expect the oil to cost the same as it did back then? It would be nice if demand, and technologies made it possible for prices to buck the overall inflationary tide, but inevitably it is going to rise.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 12:40 PM
I don't disagree with most of that. I'm not sure what you mean by "allow off-shore drilling." We already drill off-shore.

And, unless something's changed, one of the nasty secrets about ethanol is it cannot be transported via pipeline; it has to be transported by truck or rail.

I've been told it's also 10 percent cleaner....but 25 percent less efficent.

Dartgod
04-24-2006, 12:43 PM
Once again, besides posting your ridiculous ideas on this BB, what are you doing to stop our dependency on oil?

Have you written your congressman or senator? What about the automobile makers? Have you contacted them?
Hey, Hamas! Are you going to continue to dodge my question?

Mile High Mania
04-24-2006, 12:46 PM
It's over the $3 mark for regular now in North Texas. Depends where you go, but I've seen it vary between $2.90 and $3.03 during the last 24 hours.

I bailed on the Yukon XL 13 months ago as prices were approaching the $2 mark. I lost man points going to the Honda minivan, but it's fully loaded... spending less monthly on it and it does get mid 20's mpg.

I would be freaking out having to fill up a Yukon every 6 days...

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 12:46 PM
Your 20 dollar bill doesn't go as far as it did back then, please, do you expect the oil to cost the same as it did back then? It would be nice if demand, and technologies made it possible for prices to buck the overall inflationary tide, but inevitably it is going to rise.

Doesn't matter...we're still be beaten at the pump...which is currently...3.30 a gallon. The price point will most likely hit 3.50 to 4 dollars this summer....the price two years ago was at 1.50...that's 100 percent increase. Do you realize a min-wage worker will now have to work one day and a half to put a tank full in their car a week? That's not including the taxes that get taken from their income and assuming they have a 14-15 gallon tank.

Donger
04-24-2006, 01:03 PM
Doesn't matter...we're still be beaten at the pump...which is currently...3.30 a gallon. The price point will most likely hit 3.50 to 4 dollars this summer....the price two years ago was at 1.50...that's 100 percent increase. Do you realize a min-wage worker will now have to work one day and a half to put a tank full in their car a week? That's not including the taxes that get taken from their income and assuming they have a 14-15 gallon tank.

I wonder if we could power our cars with grounded-up humans? If so, we could use illegal aliens, since they already do the jobs no Americans want to do.

morphius
04-24-2006, 01:08 PM
Here we go...

While it is pretty ugly, not very fast and is just over 13 grand, but 157 mpg isn't bad...

http://www.ifenergy.com/50226711/loremo_on_the_edge.php

and of course, not due for 3 years...

Hydrae
04-24-2006, 01:09 PM
Haven't read beyond the first 30 posts but those calling for a drop in the taxes on gasoline are not thinking things through. If you lower the taxes on gas, what are you going to increase them on to replace the lost revenue? You can not eliminate a source of tax revenue without either lower the output (would love to but that is a different discussion) or get it from somewhere else.

Donger
04-24-2006, 01:12 PM
Could be worse, or better, I suppose:

Global Gas Prices*
(1 gallon=3.8 L)

Most expensive per gallon:

Amsterdam, Netherlands: $6.48
Oslo, Norway: $6.27
Milan, Italy: $5.96
Copenhagen, Denmark: $5.93
Brussels, Belgium: $5.91

Least expensive per gallon:

Caracas, Venezuela: $0.12
Lagos, Nigeria: $0.38
Cairo, Egypt: $0.65
Kuwait City, Kuwait: $0.78
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: $0.91

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 01:39 PM
Doesn't matter...we're still be beaten at the pump...which is currently...3.30 a gallon. The price point will most likely hit 3.50 to 4 dollars this summer....the price two years ago was at 1.50...that's 100 percent increase. Do you realize a min-wage worker will now have to work one day and a half to put a tank full in their car a week? That's not including the taxes that get taken from their income and assuming they have a 14-15 gallon tank.Its time to scrap that value menu at the fast food joints, isn't it?

Guess we better raise the minimum wage to 20 dollars / hour so they can afford to drive gas guzzlers to their minimum wage job. ROFL

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 01:41 PM
Haven't read beyond the first 30 posts but those calling for a drop in the taxes on gasoline are not thinking things through. If you lower the taxes on gas, what are you going to increase them on to replace the lost revenue? You can not eliminate a source of tax revenue without either lower the output (would love to but that is a different discussion) or get it from somewhere else.I say cut the taxes, and let the government take a hit at the pump. Screw them replacing it somewheres else. Novel thought dude: How bout the government SPEND LESS!

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 01:42 PM
I wonder if we could power our cars with grounded-up humans? If so, we could use illegal aliens, since they already do the jobs no Americans want to do.

Or...we can hold oil and gas accountable and fix the price on it. This is going to wreak problems on our economy. People aren't going to travel as much...because they can't afford it. They don't travel...they don't spend...or...at least they don't spend money in the same way. A 200 percent increase of 5 years at the pump is out of control, and nobody is going to do anything about it either. We're all to ****ing weak and a bunch of pussies.

Donger
04-24-2006, 01:43 PM
Or...we can hold oil and gas accountable and fix the price on it. This is going to wreak problems on our economy. People aren't going to travel as much...because they can't afford it. They don't travel...they don't spend...or...at least they don't spend money in the same way. A 200 percent increase of 5 years at the pump is out of control, and nobody is going to do anything about it either. We're all to ****ing weak and a bunch of pussies.

Do you know what happened the last time gasoline prices were fixed?

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 01:44 PM
Or...we can hold oil and gas accountable and fix the price on it. This is going to wreak problems on our economy. People aren't going to travel as much...because they can't afford it. They don't travel...they don't spend...or...at least they don't spend money in the same way. A 200 percent increase of 5 years at the pump is out of control, and nobody is going to do anything about it either. We're all to ****ing weak and a bunch of pussies.You do that, and there will be shortages of fuel. PERIOD.

Price ceilings lead to shortages. COME ON PEOPLE, this isn't rocket science here. I want to tast my beer.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 01:44 PM
Its time to scrap that value menu at the fast food joints, isn't it?

Guess we better raise the minimum wage to 20 dollars / hour so they can afford to drive gas guzzlers to their minimum wage job. ROFL

I'm glad you think that's funny. I do too....**** poor people. What about other places that pay min but aren't food service places...**** them too.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 01:46 PM
Do you know what happened the last time gasoline prices were fixed?I am all over it Donger.

ROFL

Adam Smith's invisible hand is the best way to deal with the gas situation.

Both for the green tree huggers, and the profit hungry oil companies, and for the desperate housewife, who can't afford the time it would take to stand in a gas line for 2 hours to fill up her Denali.

Donger
04-24-2006, 01:46 PM
I'm glad you think that's funny. I do too....**** poor people. What about other places that pay min but aren't food service places...**** them too.

I think the point that bunny's making is that maybe minimum wage people don't make enough to afford a car?

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 01:47 PM
You do that, and there will be shortages of fuel. PERIOD.

Price ceilings lead to shortages. COME ON PEOPLE, this isn't rocket science here. I want to tast my beer.

No they don't....companies holding the product cause shortages...don't be naive.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 01:47 PM
I'm glad you think that's funny. I do too....**** poor people. What about other places that pay min but aren't food service places...**** them too.Yeah, and I might was well say **** you to, you p.o.s. Denver fan. :p

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 01:48 PM
No they don't....companies holding the product cause shortages...don't be naive.If you believe that, then you are a tool of the liberal left.

Tool.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 01:49 PM
I think the point that bunny's making is that maybe minimum wage people don't make enough to afford a car?Exactly! Garcia made a stupid argument about min wage workers commuting to work in their gas guzzlers. Many walk to work, think of the health benefits, or ride bicycles.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 01:53 PM
No they don't....companies holding the product cause shortages...don't be naive.In fact, as the price of gas goes up, the incentive to refine MORE gasoline goes up, as the companies seek to make MORE profits.

More oil will be explored for, more will be produced(marginal wells will now be profitable and brought back on line)

Oil workers Do NOT work for minimum wage. They make money, and support families as well. They want to get paid.

Are they evil for wanting a wage for wrestling with an oil bit?

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 01:53 PM
I think the point that bunny's making is that maybe minimum wage people don't make enough to afford a car?

Then how should they get to work? If you think about it....who really does make anough to afford a car?

Taxes - State - 200-1000 per year
Insurance - 1200 - 5000 per year
Gas - 2500 - 10000 per year
Note - 200 - 800 per month


That's a bunch of jack for a 210 bean per week job even at the lowest amount.

Donger
04-24-2006, 01:58 PM
Then how should they get to work?

Walk, take the bus, et al. You know, something that they can afford.

If you think about it....who really does make anough to afford a car?

Taxes - State - 200-1000 per year
Insurance - 1200 - 5000 per year
Gas - 2500 - 10000 per year
Note - 200 - 800 per month


That's a bunch of jack for a 210 bean per week job even at the lowest amount.

I'm really just talking about living within one's means. Having a car isn't a right, you know.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 01:59 PM
If you believe that, then you are a tool of the liberal left.

Tool.

I'm neither a tool of the liberal left nor a tool from the right....what I'm talking about is the floor board and the foundation of our class system not being able to go anywhere or do anything...then what do you have.....


ask the stupid french

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 02:02 PM
Walk, take the bus, et al. You know, something that they can afford.



I'm really just talking about living within one's means. Having a car isn't a right, you know.

I don't if it's a right...I do know it's a impossible to lead a life in this country without one. You can sit there and say that stuff if you want to...but you know it's not right.

Donger
04-24-2006, 02:05 PM
I'm neither a tool of the liberal left nor a tool from the right....what I'm talking about is the floor board and the foundation of our class system not being able to go anywhere or do anything...then what do you have.....


ask the stupid french

Our class system? Give it a f*cking rest. My family came to this country with literally only the money in our pockets. Thankfully, my dad and mum worked their asses off and ended up making a lot of money. Brains and hard work still go a damn long way in this country, and that's why my folks left that rathole where true class warfare DOES exist.

Donger
04-24-2006, 02:06 PM
I don't if it's a right...I do know it's a impossible to lead a life in this country without one.

Nonsense, absolute nonsense. It's a lot easier and more convenient to have your own automobile, but it's not impossible to lead a life without one.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 02:07 PM
I don't if it's a right...I do know it's a impossible to lead a life in this country without one. You can sit there and say that stuff if you want to...but you know it's not right.People get along fine without cars, have for years. I am certain that their are some real believers in San Francisco, that would believe it a sin if they owned a car.

They ride bicycles. Ever hear of "critical mass"?

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 02:09 PM
Our class system? Give it a f*cking rest. My family came to this country with literally only the money in our pockets. Thankfully, my dad and mum worked their asses off and ended up making a lot of money. Brains and hard work still go a damn long way in this country, and that's why my folks left that rathole where true class warfare DOES exist.Forget all that, where did your Mother in law come from? :D

Donger
04-24-2006, 02:12 PM
Forget all that, where did your Mother in law come from? :D

She's a mutt from New York.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 02:21 PM
Our class system? Give it a f*cking rest. My family came to this country with literally only the money in our pockets. Thankfully, my dad and mum worked their asses off and ended up making a lot of money. Brains and hard work still go a damn long way in this country, and that's why my folks left that rathole where true class warfare DOES exist.
Mine too...so did many people....what's your point? I'm not talking about giving people money...I'm talking about the ability to get from A to B of your fellow Americans the help support the economy. If you want to play the hard luck life game...I bet I've got you beat any day of the week.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 02:23 PM
Nonsense, absolute nonsense. It's a lot easier and more convenient to have your own automobile, but it's not impossible to lead a life without one.

Not everyone can live in walking distance to their job, again...easy for you to tell someone else how they should live their opposed to making rat thief oil companies and governement to do the right thing.

Donger
04-24-2006, 02:25 PM
Mine too...so did many people....what's your point? I'm not talking about giving people money...I'm talking about the ability to get from A to B of your fellow Americans the help support the economy.

My point is that your assertion that we have an immovable class system in this country is crap.

Donger
04-24-2006, 02:28 PM
Not everyone can live in walking distance to their job, again...easy for you to tell someone else how they should live their opposed to making rat thief oil companies and governement to do the right thing.

Buses. Bicycles. The list goes on. It's not impossible; it's just not as convenient.

If people want to own things that are too expensive for them to own and operate, so be it. Just don't complain about it.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 03:11 PM
Buses. Bicycles. The list goes on. It's not impossible; it's just not as convenient.

If people want to own things that are too expensive for them to own and operate, so be it. Just don't complain about it.

Don't complain then when it gets so bad that people riot for lack of better things to do.

Donger
04-24-2006, 03:13 PM
Don't complain then when it gets so bad that people riot for lack of better things to do.

Sounds like target practice to me. I won't complain.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 03:16 PM
Buses. Bicycles. The list goes on. It's not impossible; it's just not as convenient.

If people want to own things that are too expensive for them to own and operate, so be it. Just don't complain about it.3 years ago, when SUV's were flying out of showrooms, how many of those people gave 2 nanoseconds worth of thought into how much gas may or may not cost in 3 years?

ct
04-24-2006, 03:41 PM
And I see that that Rabbit needed to be plugged into the grid at night. Or perhaps you didn't understand my question in the first place.

Why is this a problem for you? Do you drive your car 24x7? How much time do you sleep at night?

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 03:45 PM
3 years ago, when SUV's were flying out of showrooms, how many of those people gave 2 nanoseconds worth of thought into how much gas may or may not cost in 3 years?Not I. Don't get me wrong....I'm not the most efficient person on the planet, but unless you have need for piece of equipment like that don't get one. But to say people that work an honest living don't deserve the right to live in this country and travel it is kinda selfish. You guys are talking about the dumbasses that are upside down on a Denali working at fast food company X with a 12 percent 10 year car loan. Yeah...what's the numbers on that? 10 percent of the fast food working population? I don't think that represents the broad spectrum of people out there that make min-wage. There exist people out there that drive fuel efficient equipment, and due to the ass ramming oil speculation might not be able to afford to travel to and from work in the near future.

It's a quality of life issue. You or the other spoke of motivation in an earlier post. If the large low class cannot attain a quality of life where is their motivation? In some area's you'll have spikes in crime. Sometimes the market setting itself is a bad thing and the pendulum needs to be moved with purpose. Ergo, for the common good something needs to be done, now...whether you want to admit it or not.

Donger
04-24-2006, 03:48 PM
Why is this a problem for you? Do you drive your car 24x7? How much time do you sleep at night?

Do you know how electricity is generated?

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 03:54 PM
Not I. Don't get me wrong....I'm not the most efficient person on the planet, but unless you have need for piece of equipment like that don't get one. But to say people that work an honest living don't deserve the right to live in this country and travel it is kinda selfish. You guys are talking about the dumbasses that are upside down on a Denali working at fast food company X with a 12 percent 10 year car loan. Yeah...what's the numbers on that? 10 percent of the fast food working population? I don't think that represents the broad spectrum of people out there that make min-wage. There exist people out there that drive fuel efficient equipment, and due to the ass ramming oil speculation might not be able to afford to travel to and from work in the near future.

It's a quality of life issue. You or the other spoke of motivation in an earlier post. If the large low class cannot attain a quality of life where is their motivation? In some area's you'll have spikes in crime. Sometimes the marketing setting itself is a bad thing and the pendulum needs to be moved with purpose. Ergo, for the common good something needs to be done, now...whether you want to admit it or not.Well, I for one, know that for the "common good" it would be great if a few more cars got the heck off the road and out of my and other peoples way.

oldandslow
04-24-2006, 04:00 PM
I know I am about to be decapitated by my left leaning brethren, but higher gas prices are the appropriate response to the energy crisis.

It is the only guaranteed way to enforce conservation and slow pollution effects. It is also the only way to see technological change come about more quickly.

The democrats response to this is almost enough to make me switch parties...the hypocrisy of "oh let's save the planet" while screaming for the government to give me the right to consume unsustainably drives me crazy!!!!

Clint in Wichita
04-24-2006, 04:03 PM
Buses. Bicycles. The list goes on. It's not impossible; it's just not as convenient.

If people want to own things that are too expensive for them to own and operate, so be it. Just don't complain about it.


If the average working stiff is forced to use public transportation, kiss the economy goodbye.

TEX
04-24-2006, 04:13 PM
3 years ago, when SUV's were flying out of showrooms, how many of those people gave 2 nanoseconds worth of thought into how much gas may or may not cost in 3 years?

I'm sure they didn't care and why should they? There was plenty of gas back then just like now. The funny thing is that most everyone points to the laws of supply and demand to defend/explain the high gasoline prices yet in spite of the increase in demand, gas supply is the highest it's been in 8 years. Meanwhile, the gas companies pull in record profits and received more than $15 BILLION in Tax Cuts and subsidies during the past 6 years... :hmmm:

I'm with Garcia on this one - we're totally getting bent over at the pump.

Clint in Wichita
04-24-2006, 04:15 PM
I'm sure they didn't care and why should they? There was plenty of gas back then just like now. The funny thing is that most everyone points to the laws of supply and demand to defend/explain the high gasoline prices yet in spite of the increase in demand, gas supply is the highest it's been in 8 years. Meanwhile, the gas companies pull in record profits and received more than $15 BILLION in Tax Cuts and subsidies during the past 6 years... :hmmm:

I'm with Garcia on this one - we're totally getting bent over at the pump.


Yes, and even those who claim we're not getting gouged will be singing a different tune when gas prices get so high that they can't afford to drive their own car.

Donger
04-24-2006, 04:20 PM
I'm sure they didn't care and why should they? There was plenty of gas back then just like now. The funny thing is that most everyone points to the laws of supply and demand to defend/explain the high gasoline prices yet in spite of the increase in demand, gas supply is the highest it's been in 8 years. Meanwhile, the gas companies pull in record profits and received more than $15 BILLION in Tax Cuts and subsidies during the past 6 years... :hmmm:

I'm with Garcia on this one - we're totally getting bent over at the pump.

Jeezus, how many times do we have to go over this? The oil companies DO NOT set the price of crude oil. And I just checked; crude now amounts for 60% of what you pay at the pump. That's up from around 40% two years ago.

I do agree with them not getting any tax breaks or subsidies. That's just f*cking stupid. But what do you expect from your government?

Donger
04-24-2006, 04:22 PM
Yes, and even those who claim we're not getting gouged will be singing a different tune when gas prices get so high that they can't afford to drive their own car.

If you have proof other than speculation, send it to the FTC. Trust me, they's LOVE to see it.

beavis
04-24-2006, 04:22 PM
Hey Donger, what's your take on all this?

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil)

Donger
04-24-2006, 04:28 PM
Hey Donger, what's your take on all this?

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil)

Up until last week, I wasn't convinced at all that we've peaked nationally or globally. But, I meet with some field guys and they didn't exactly fill me with confidence. They are still doing lots of exploration, but they were of the opinion that demand is going to outstrip supply within the next five to ten years.

beavis
04-24-2006, 04:31 PM
Up until last week, I wasn't convinced at all that we've peaked nationally or globally. But, I meet with some field guys and they didn't exactly fill me with confidence. They are still doing lots of exploration, but they were of the opinion that demand is going to outstrip supply within the next five to ten years.
Listening to Bob Brinker rant on it for most of his show yesterday really got me concerned. It's going to be an issue one of these days no matter what.

oldandslow
04-24-2006, 04:32 PM
Donger...

I have been a believer (peak oil) for several years. I have been meeting with geologists who are telling me the same thing.

American consumerism, Chinese expansion, and Indian population are placing the final nail in the coffin.

Donger
04-24-2006, 04:36 PM
Donger...

I have been a believer (peak oil) for several years. I have been meeting with geologists who are telling me the same thing.

American consumerism, Chinese expansion, and Indian population are placing the final nail in the coffin.

Yep. I've known these guys since I was a teenager, and they were definitely concerned.

dirk digler
04-24-2006, 04:38 PM
I was watching a news program the other night and they said that Bolivia is going to be oil free this year and that all of their cars will be fueled by sugar (ethanol).

So I am sitting here thinking we are supposed to be the smartest country in the world yet we couldn't figure this out. I blame the government for not looking out for us. :mad:

Donger
04-24-2006, 04:44 PM
I was watching a news program the other night and they said that Bolivia is going to be oil free this year and that all of their cars will be fueled by sugar (ethanol).

So I am sitting here thinking we are supposed to be the smartest country in the world yet we couldn't figure this out. I blame the government for not looking out for us. :mad:

Ethanol from sugar cane is far efficient than from other crops. Unfortunately, our climate is rather bad for growing sugar.

oldandslow
04-24-2006, 04:48 PM
I was watching a news program the other night and they said that Bolivia is going to be oil free this year and that all of their cars will be fueled by sugar (ethanol).

So I am sitting here thinking we are supposed to be the smartest country in the world yet we couldn't figure this out. I blame the government for not looking out for us. :mad:

I think you mean Brazil, not Bolivia.

Brazil produces 1.7 mbpd and uses 2.2 mbpd.

That leaves 500,000 bpd to be imported.

Ethanol solved for that 500,000.

They have been developing sugarcane ethanol since 1976.

30 years of slave labor and government subsidies and you can only displace less than 500,000 barrels?

The US imports around 13 mbpd.

Connect the dots.

There is not enough land in this country to grow that much corn, btw.

dirk digler
04-24-2006, 04:50 PM
Ethanol from sugar cane is far efficient than from other crops. Unfortunately, our climate is rather bad for growing sugar.

I don't know much about ethanol (sugar) but does it have to be from the real sugar cane or can companies make sugar on a mass scale like they do with Equal or something like that?

dirk digler
04-24-2006, 04:54 PM
[QUOTE=oldandslow]I think you mean Brazil, not Bolivia.

Thanks I knew it started with a B.

BTW here is a new article about sugar.

By Alexandra A. Seno
Newsweek International

May 1, 2006 issue - The surprising thing about the price of oil, which hit a new record of $75 a barrel last week, is how little visible impact it has had on a booming global economy. But that hasn't stopped market watchers from looking for and finding peripheral shocks, even where they don't really exist. Consider the recent rush to sugar, which spiked to a 25-year high of 20 cents a pound, driven largely by buzz about an old phenomenon: the largest producer, Brazil, devotes half its crop to the production of ethanol, which is an increasingly competitive source of energy for cars as gas prices spike.

Sugar for fuel is an interesting story, but it's a relatively small one that at the moment is still largely confined to Brazil. The share of global sugar production that goes to biofuels is roughly 15 percent, or about what it was 20 years ago, and the vast majority of that production is now in Brazil. In fact, Brazil used to devote a lot more of its (then much smaller) crop to biofuels, and most of its booming sugar production now fuels a much bigger story: sugar for food. Demand is rising relentlessly, at a pace of about 2 percent a year, driven by increasingly sweet tastes in developing nations, even as sugar consumption slows in the West. Meanwhile, a combination of underinvestment and bad weather in producing regions (from Gulf Coast hurricanes to drought in Thailand and a March cyclone in Australia) has disrupted supply. The result: last year demand reached 151 million tons, against a supply of 149 million tons, driving prices up, with more rises in store.

Trade wars, not oil shocks, are the key going forward. Next month the European Union, its hand forced by a World Trade Organization ruling, must dramatically cut export subsidies to its sugar growers. In anticipation of falling profits, several big sugar companies, like Germany's Südzucker, Poland's British Polska and Denmark's Danisco, have been cutting production. Analysts say some European companies will like-ly collapse, further tightening supply and driving up prices, which closed last week at 17 cents a pound. "This time next year, it will be much higher than where we are at today," predicts Michael Overlander, CEO of Sucden, the London-based commodities-brokerage unit of Groupe Sucres & Denrées, a company that handles 20 percent of the world's sugar business.

The demand is driven by the (rather alarming) dietary habits of the young, the poor and particularly those who are both. The growing health concerns in rich nations about excessive sugar consumption have no real parallel in the emerging world, says Sergey Gudoshnikov, senior economist at the International Sugar Organization. Demand is rising fastest in the poorest regions—at a peak rate of 4.5 percent a year in equatorial and southern Africa, and at 3.5 percent in South Asia. India is the largest sugar market on the planet, not only because it is one of the fastest-growing and most populous economies, but also because two thirds of its billion citizens are under 30 years old, the group most likely to consume sugar worldwide.

The way poor markets satisfy their sweet teeth is also changing fast. In richer countries like the United States, for example, the average person consumes 30 kilos of sugar each year, 80 percent of it in processed foods: soft drinks, candy, baked goods, cereal, etc. A typical 12-ounce can of soda pop contains eight tablespoons of sugar. In China, the average person consumes about one third as much sugar, mainly in raw form, spooned out of the box or the bowl. "The joke is that Chinese are still eating sugar with chopsticks," says Gudoshnikov.

But that joke won't work for long: soft-drink sales, for example, grew 8.7 percent last year in the Asia-Pacific region, even as they shrank by 2.6 percent in Western Europe. "As people become richer, they consume more cakes, sweets and drinks," says Pornsin Thaemsirichai, vice president of Khon Kaen Sugar in Thailand, the fourth largest exporter.

Meanwhile, sugar for fuel looks unlikely to expand rapidly beyond Brazil. When sugar prices bottomed out at four cents a pound in the 1980s, most producing nations cut back investment, leaving them with antiquated equipment and backward methods. Brazil was the exception, creating a cutting-edge production system featuring satellites to help pinpoint peak harvest times. That's why Brazil is now the No. 1 producer by far, and has surplus to turn into ethanol. Most other nations use sugar byproducts or other crops to make biofuel; Thailand uses molasses and tapioca. The world's leading energy consumers, the United States and China, prefer corn. Overlander notes that if all the market hype over sugar for fuel made any sense, "then someone should ask, why not corn? It's a biofuel too." The answer: the markets may be right about sugar, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 04:55 PM
I'm sure they didn't care and why should they? There was plenty of gas back then just like now. The funny thing is that most everyone points to the laws of supply and demand to defend/explain the high gasoline prices yet in spite of the increase in demand, gas supply is the highest it's been in 8 years. Meanwhile, the gas companies pull in record profits and received more than $15 BILLION in Tax Cuts and subsidies during the past 6 years... :hmmm:

I'm with Garcia on this one - we're totally getting bent over at the pump.
You can't argue the numbers period with all the profits that were reported. They need to lower the prices and as previously mentioned...the government needs to get it's greasy hands off it. We've got oil and sources of energy all around us....it's a joke...unless somebody can make a buck.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 04:59 PM
btw...how old is the internal combustion engine?

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 05:24 PM
I'm sure they didn't care and why should they? There was plenty of gas back then just like now. The funny thing is that most everyone points to the laws of supply and demand to defend/explain the high gasoline prices yet in spite of the increase in demand, gas supply is the highest it's been in 8 years. Meanwhile, the gas companies pull in record profits and received more than $15 BILLION in Tax Cuts and subsidies during the past 6 years... :hmmm:

I'm with Garcia on this one - we're totally getting bent over at the pump.The level, or increase in demand for gasoline, is an independent function from the supply of gasoline.

Calcountry
04-24-2006, 05:43 PM
You can't argue the numbers period with all the profits that were reported. They need to lower the prices and as previously mentioned...the government needs to get it's greasy hands off it. We've got oil and sources of energy all around us....it's a joke...unless somebody can make a buck.Why is making a buck a bad thing?

Look at the phugking Russians. Most of their plebes don't even have enough butter, let alone gasoline.

Do you really want the government to tell everyone how much gas they should be allowed to have and at what price?

Dude, pick up an Econ 1A text and read a little will ya?

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 05:53 PM
Why is making a buck a bad thing?




Is doing one line of coke a bad thing? There is such a thing as excess...and you know that.

Garcia Bronco
04-24-2006, 06:03 PM
Why is making a buck a bad thing?

Look at the phugking Russians. Most of their plebes don't even have enough butter, let alone gasoline.

Do you really want the government to tell everyone how much gas they should be allowed to have and at what price?

Dude, pick up an Econ 1A text and read a little will ya?


I'm not talking about making rules for all time...this is just an interim solution. You're talking about an entire system of economics. I'm talking about the ability to be able to have the quality of life without bleeding each other dry. There has to be a future without gasoline in vehicles that everybody needs. It not as if lowering the gas prices is going to make everything better...but that's another topic. In times of crisis in our country's past American business has made sacrifices to help the greater good. This is one of those times.

Amnorix
04-24-2006, 07:44 PM
http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/content/bb76.jpg

TEX
04-24-2006, 08:44 PM
The level, or increase in demand for gasoline, is an independent function from the supply of gasoline.

Yes, but what we're talking about the price and how it relates to the increase in demand relevant to supply - or so what we've been told.

jspchief
04-24-2006, 08:55 PM
I think you mean Brazil, not Bolivia.

Brazil produces 1.7 mbpd and uses 2.2 mbpd.

That leaves 500,000 bpd to be imported.

Ethanol solved for that 500,000.

They have been developing sugarcane ethanol since 1976.

30 years of slave labor and government subsidies and you can only displace less than 500,000 barrels?

The US imports around 13 mbpd.

Connect the dots.

There is not enough land in this country to grow that much corn, btw.The average Brazilian also drives as much in one month as we do in like 1.5 days.

It may have been a viable solution for them, but it simply doesn't translate to America.

Bugeater
04-24-2006, 09:27 PM
http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/content/bb76.jpg
ROFL Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Donger
04-24-2006, 09:32 PM
Has anyone else noticed that these threads always end up with "Yeah! But...." from those that all are pissed off about gas prices?

Donger
04-24-2006, 09:35 PM
Yes, but what we're talking about the price and how it relates to the increase in demand relevant to supply - or so what we've been told.

You've been told that by people who don't understand the oil market. Considering crude has always been the most significant part of the price of a gallon of gasoline, IT is the most important price factor. Not the only one, just the most relevant.

TEX
04-24-2006, 09:44 PM
You've been told that by people who don't understand the oil market. Considering crude has always been the most significant part of the price of a gallon of gasoline, IT is the most important price factor. Not the only one, just the most relevant.

YEAH BUT that is what I said about a hundred or so posts ago.

Boon
04-24-2006, 09:56 PM
Do you know how electricity is generated?


Coal?

TEX
04-24-2006, 10:10 PM
Coal?


ROFL :clap:

Might as well be because the electricity rates are rising almost as much as fossil fuel. Where I live electricity is up 31% over last year - just in time for the hot summer ahead. :hmmm:

Donger
04-25-2006, 09:26 AM
Coal?

For the most part, yes. Which, of course, is a fossil fuel. And, can you imagine how will the grid would stand up to millions of cars suddenly being plugged in overnight to charge?

No thanks.

Donger
04-25-2006, 09:27 AM
Bush actually doing something right for a change.

WASHINGTON -
President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump. He also halted for the summer the purchase of crude oil for the government's emergency reserve.

Bush also announced steps to ease environmental standards governing fuel grades.

The moves came as political pressure intensified on Bush to do something about gasoline prices that are expected to stay high throughout the summer.

Bush said the nation's strategic petroleum reserve had enough fuel to guard against any major supply disruption over the next few months.

"So, by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps," he said.

Wholesale gasoline futures prices for June delivery dropped 8 cents a gallon to $2.10 on the New York Mercantile Exchange immediately upon Bush's remarks.

Easing the environment rules will allow refiners greater flexibility in providing oil supplies since they will not have to use certain additives such as ethanol to meet clean air standards. The suspension of oil purchases for the federal emergency oil reserve is likely to have only modest impact since relative little extra oil will be involved.

The high cost at the pump has turned into a major political issue, with Democrats and Republicans blaming each other for a problem that is largely out of Congress' control. Republicans are worried that voters paying more than $3 per gallon would punish the party in power. Democrats want to make that happen.

Bush said that high gasoline prices are like a hidden tax on consumers and businesses, although he said the nation's economy was strong. He urged Congress to take back some of the billions of dollars in tax incentives it gave energy companies, saying that with record profits, they don't need the breaks. He urged lawmakers to expand tax breaks for the purchase of fuel-efficient hybrid automobiles.

The president said Democrats in the past have urged higher taxes on fuel and price caps to control fuel expenses, but he said neither approach works. Instead, he called for increased conservation, an expansion of domestic production and increased use of alternative fuels like ethanol.

Bush said high energy prices are disturbing.

"Our addiction to oil is a matter of national security concerns," the president said in a speech to the Renewable Fuels Association, which advocates alternate energy sources. "After all, today we get about 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries. That's up from 20 years ago, where about 25 percent of our oil came from foreign countries."

Bush said gasoline prices are expected to remain high throughout the summer and "that's going to be a continued strain on the American people."

Bush said the Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department and the Energy Department were investigating whether the price of gasoline has been unfairly manipulated. The administration also contacted all 50 state attorneys general to offer technical assistance to urge them to investigate possible illegal price manipulation within their jurisdictions.

oldandslow
04-25-2006, 09:31 AM
Donger,

This is where we part ways. I do not agree with not refilling the reserve. If another Katrina hits in the gulf....

ct
04-25-2006, 09:33 AM
Do you know how electricity is generated?

Oh so since you have to plug it in, this ruins the "green"-ness for you? Since your outlet at home is still powered by fossil fuels, guess I might as well just burn the gasoline. :rolleyes:

jspchief
04-25-2006, 09:33 AM
Has anyone else noticed that these threads always end up with "Yeah! But...." from those that all are pissed off about gas prices?Is there something unreasonable about being pissed about high gas prices?

Both my vehicles use a lot of gas. Both are also neccessary for my business, but I would probably own my Suburban regardless. I bought it knowing that it would cost me a lot in gas. I didn't however expect gas to double in price in a few years.

You act like what's happened to the price of gas in the last two years is normal. In the 17 years I've been driving, it went up about .50-.60 over the first 15 years, then 1.50 in the last two years. I don't think you can realistically say the average consumer should have expected this.

Donger
04-25-2006, 09:36 AM
Donger,

This is where we part ways. I do not agree with not refilling the reserve. If another Katrina hits in the gulf....

Peh. It's still 700 million barrels. It can take a hit.

Donger
04-25-2006, 09:37 AM
Oh so since you have to plug it in, this ruins the "green"-ness for you? Since your outlet at home is still powered by fossil fuels, guess I might as well just burn the gasoline. :rolleyes:

I'm just pointing out the fact that the 'all-electric' car that Hamas was talking about has to be recharged by the grid. It isn't a full regenerative braking vehicle.

That's all.

Donger
04-25-2006, 09:39 AM
Is there something unreasonable about being pissed about high gas prices?

Both my vehicles use a lot of gas. Both are also neccessary for my business, but I would probably own my Suburban regardless. I bought it knowing that it would cost me a lot in gas. I didn't however expect gas to double in price in a few years.

You act like what's happened to the price of gas in the last two years is normal. In the 17 years I've been driving, it went up about .50-.60 over the first 15 years, then 1.50 in the last two years. I don't think you can realistically say the average consumer should have expected this.

I understand the anger. I just don't personally get upset about it, since I've been expecting it.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 09:47 AM
I understand the anger. I just don't personally get upset about it, since I've been expecting it.Even if I had expected this type of increase, which I'll admit I didn't, I'd still be pissed. I'd be pissed because there wasn't much in the way of alternative routes for me to have avoided this.

ct
04-25-2006, 09:48 AM
For the most part, yes. Which, of course, is a fossil fuel. And, can you imagine how will the grid would stand up to millions of cars suddenly being plugged in overnight to charge?

No thanks.

That is ****in horseshit!! Plugging the cars in overnight is not the problem. Not being able to match the power, and convenience of ICE vehicles for the comsumer is the problem.

When somebody can finally convince a big automaker they have a vehicle that comes close, and that people will buy it, they will start to mass-produce them. Until then, it's still a fringe "alternative".

I'm just pointing out the fact that the 'all-electric' car that Hamas was talking about has to be recharged by the grid. It isn't a full regenerative braking vehicle.

That's all.

See above. Me personally, if I could afford to make this switch for my vehicle, I would. Unfortunately, I'm in a very small minority willing to drastically scale back my driving habits to make change.

Donger
04-25-2006, 09:51 AM
Even if I had expected this type of increase, which I'll admit I didn't, I'd still be pissed. I'd be pissed because there wasn't much in the way of alternative routes for me to have avoided this.

And, in the words of Bubba, I do feel your pain. You're one of those that HAS to drive a vehicle that gets shitty mpg so that you can earn money.

I think it's going to be a weird season. Prices typically go up at the pump this time of year anyway, but they've gone up higher than I expected. I thought we'd see national averages near $2.75 by summer and we're at $2.91 now. I have a suspicion that they are going to start heading down over the next two months, though.

Donger
04-25-2006, 09:53 AM
That is ****in horseshit!! Plugging the cars in overnight is not the problem. Not being able to match the power, and convenience of ICE vehicles for the comsumer is the problem.

When somebody can finally convince a big automaker they have a vehicle that comes close, and that people will buy it, they will start to mass-produce them. Until then, it's still a fringe "alternative".

Oh? You think that the grid could handle the additional demand load of millions of cars being charged?

Rain Man
04-25-2006, 09:57 AM
I read an article in Popular Science last month about a promising new technology for oceangoing freighters. The article discussed the use of wind power for these ships, using large portable sails that can be retrofitted onto existing ships and moved on or off the ship as its schedule demands.

I thought it was a pretty cool and innovative idea, and then I thought, "Wait a minute..." It's funny that the new technology is now the technology that was in vogue 250 years ago.

ct
04-25-2006, 10:00 AM
I read an article in Popular Science last month about a promising new technology for oceangoing freighters. The article discussed the use of wind power for these ships, using large portable sails that can be retrofitted onto existing ships and moved on or off the ship as its schedule demands.

I thought it was a pretty cool and innovative idea, and then I thought, "Wait a minute..." It's funny that the new technology is now the technology that was in vogue 250 years ago.

Reversal of the Industrial Revolution.

ct
04-25-2006, 10:00 AM
Oh? You think that the grid could handle the additional demand load of millions of cars being charged?

How much energy is required to rechange 1 vehicle overnight? I don't know, I'm asking.

morphius
04-25-2006, 10:03 AM
Oh? You think that the grid could handle the additional demand load of millions of cars being charged?
Time to build some more nuclear plants...

jspchief
04-25-2006, 10:04 AM
When somebody can finally convince a big automaker they have a vehicle that comes close, and that people will buy it, they will start to mass-produce them. Until then, it's still a fringe "alternative".
I don't think "coming close" will do it. Americans are creatures of habit, and they aren't going to leave the comfort zone of gas autos unless something comes along that stands above it.

Think about the microwave oven. Would it have caught on if it only made cooking slightly faster? Probably not. We know it doesn't cook as well, so the key component was speed. The consumer was willing to sacrifice some performance, because they got such a huge improvement in another aspect. I think it will have to be the same thing for cars. There's already the feeling that you sacrifice performance in a hybrid (whether true or not, perception is close enough to reality). On top of that, it's more expensive, and it's a new technology, in an industry where technological failure is a key component in buying decisions.

Not only will the non oil dependant auto have to give consumers a better fuel alternative, it's going to have to draw them in with some other attraction. Whether increased performance, lower price point, or whatever else. The average consumer doesn't want to be a guinea pig for only a slight gain, or no gain at all.

And that's why manufacturers aren't putting that much into this. Why risk it? Sure, they may make a windfall if they get it right, but they also could waste a lot of resources trying and failing. The manufacturers are sticking to their comfort zone, because they know the consumer likely will too.

Donger
04-25-2006, 10:13 AM
How much energy is required to rechange 1 vehicle overnight? I don't know, I'm asking.

I'm talking about demand. I suppose most people would plug them in overnight when demand is low anyway. I remember reading that most BEVs have a demand around 2 kW and depending on the size of the battery, right around 12 kWh.

Maybe someone with greater knowledge can chime in.

ct
04-25-2006, 10:20 AM
I don't think "coming close" will do it. Americans are creatures of habit, and they aren't going to leave the comfort zone of gas autos unless something comes along that stands above it.

Think about the microwave oven. Would it have caught on if it only made cooking slightly faster? Probably not. We know it doesn't cook as well, so the key component was speed. The consumer was willing to sacrifice some performance, because they got such a huge improvement in another aspect. I think it will have to be the same thing for cars. There's already the feeling that you sacrifice performance in a hybrid (whether true or not, perception is close enough to reality). On top of that, it's more expensive, and it's a new technology, in an industry where technological failure is a key component in buying decisions.

Not only will the non oil dependant auto have to give consumers a better fuel alternative, it's going to have to draw them in with some other attraction. Whether increased performance, lower price point, or whatever else. The average consumer doesn't want to be a guinea pig for only a slight gain, or no gain at all.

And that's why manufacturers aren't putting that much into this. Why risk it? Sure, they may make a windfall if they get it right, but they also could waste a lot of resources trying and failing. The manufacturers are sticking to their comfort zone, because they know the consumer likely will too.

Your microwave oven analogy contradicts your overall conclusion, I think. If they develop an EV "microwave oven", the selling point is NO GASOLINE!! That concept with a slightly lesser driving experience, IMO, is plenty of incentive to make the change.

Slightly lesser driving experience (the inconveniences I mean) = Slightly lesser food quality
NO GASOLINE = Much faster cooking times <-- There is the market right there!!

jspchief
04-25-2006, 10:28 AM
Your microwave oven analogy contradicts your overall conclusion, I think. If they develop an EV "microwave oven", the selling point is NO GASOLINE!! That concept with a slightly lesser driving experience, IMO, is plenty of incentive to make the change.

Slightly lesser driving experience (the inconveniences I mean) = Slightly lesser food quality
NO GASOLINE = Much faster cooking times <-- There is the market right there!!That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at. Hybrids will probably never really catch on, at least in their current form, because they don't exceed what is currently out there by enough of a margin.

And oven manufacturers didn't come up with microwave technology. Maybe some auto company will eventually take the risk, but IMO most of them will be content knowing that everyone still wants an "oven".

ct
04-25-2006, 10:32 AM
I can't find it, but I recall seeing something about energy saving tips. Unplugging appliances overnight that have clocks, like a microwave for instance. I'd like to know, or learn, how to balance the energy used to recharge an EV overnight with energy saved with very simple steps in the home. Just a hunch, but I bet we'd all be surprised how easy it might be.

Of course, this makes a huge assumption, that American comsumers care enough to actually do it. Frankly, I don't think that is the case.

morphius
04-25-2006, 10:33 AM
I'm talking about demand. I suppose most people would plug them in overnight when demand is low anyway. I remember reading that most BEVs have a demand around 2 kW and depending on the size of the battery, right around 12 kWh.

Maybe someone with greater knowledge can chime in.
I read somewhere that the most recent battery tech, when used in a car, is estimated at about $.25 a night for a full charge. Which is still only $90 a year, which may fill up your tank twice if you are lucky.

morphius
04-25-2006, 10:34 AM
I can't find it, but I recall seeing something about energy saving tips. Unplugging appliances overnight that have clocks, like a microwave for instance. I'd like to know, or learn, how to balance the energy used to recharge an EV overnight with energy saved with very simple steps in the home. Just a hunch, but I bet we'd all be surprised how easy it might be.

Of course, this makes a huge assumption, that American comsumers care enough to actually do it. Frankly, I don't think that is the case.
Well, we could use the power from the shutdown refineries and oil business buildings :D

Donger
04-25-2006, 10:36 AM
I can't find it, but I recall seeing something about energy saving tips. Unplugging appliances overnight that have clocks, like a microwave for instance. I'd like to know, or learn, how to balance the energy used to recharge an EV overnight with energy saved with very simple steps in the home. Just a hunch, but I bet we'd all be surprised how easy it might be.

Of course, this makes a huge assumption, that American comsumers care enough to actually do it. Frankly, I don't think that is the case.

I doubt that'd be anywhere near enough. You could always increase your A/C setpoints a few degrees. You save about 5-10% per degree F, IIRC.

4th and Long
04-25-2006, 10:36 AM
I went into a gas station this morning, whipped out an Andrew Jackson and told the guy I wanted 20 dollars worth of gas.

He farted and took my twenty.

Donger
04-25-2006, 10:40 AM
I read somewhere that the most recent battery tech, when used in a car, is estimated at about $.25 a night for a full charge. Which is still only $90 a year, which may fill up your tank twice if you are lucky.

Really? That's pretty good.

The BEV stuff I've read say that most take on average 10 kWh to fully charge. Say a kWh is $.10 per and you get one dollar a day, so more like $360 a year.

Donger
04-25-2006, 10:40 AM
I went into a gas station this morning, whipped out an Andrew Jackson and told the guy I wanted 20 dollars worth of gas.

He farted and took my twenty.

ROFL

Donger
04-25-2006, 10:45 AM
ROFL

DETROIT (Reuters) - U.S. consumers bought vehicles with big, gas-guzzling engines at an unchanged rate in the first three months of the year despite rising gas prices, according to a survey released on Monday.

In the first quarter, about 25 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States were equipped with eight- cylinder engines, according to sales trends analyzed by the Power Information Network, a data tracking service of consulting firm J.D. Power and Associates.

That market share level for V8s -- typically the most powerful engines used in trucks and large sport utility vehicles -- was unchanged from the average of 25 percent in the fourth quarter, according to the Power Information Network.

The market share of six- and four-cylinder engine-vehicles have also not budged in the face of higher gasoline prices, now above $3 per gallon in many U.S. markets, J.D. Power said.

Six-cylinder engines represented just over 40 percent of new-vehicle sales over the past nine months, while four- cylinder engines have accounted for just over 30 percent, the firm said.

If that trend holds, it would be good news for General Motors Corp., which has staked its product strategy this year to the launch of a new line of SUVs, including the Tahoe and the Yukon, which run on V8 engines.

"So far, the perceived gas price increases have not had any discernible impact on new-vehicle buying patterns, at least with regard to the size of the engine," said Tom Libby, an industry analyst at the Power Information Network.

Despite fears of a consumer backlash against SUVs in the face of higher oil prices, few analysts expect U.S. drivers will defect in large numbers to smaller cars featuring four- cylinder engines this year.

Rather, most forecast gains for cross-over utility vehicles, which are built on car platforms, and even luxury sedans at the expense of the SUV market.

Those marginal shifts in demand are widely tracked since the overall U.S. auto market is expected to be flat at best this year at just under 17 million vehicles sold.

"Gas prices are certainly becoming a popular dinner and water cooler discussion topic, but consumers appear to be conditioned to prices at current levels," said Jeff Schuster, executive director of global forecasting at J.D. Power.

jspchief
04-25-2006, 10:52 AM
ROFL

DETROIT (Reuters) - U.S. consumers bought vehicles with big, gas-guzzling engines at an unchanged rate in the first three months of the year despite rising gas prices, according to a survey released on Monday.
I can't say I'm suprised. For many families, it will be a lifestyle change to get away from SUVs. We've become accustomed to everything such a large vehicle provides, and convincing ourselves that we don't need them will not be easy.

It's not going to happen overnight.

Deberg_1990
04-25-2006, 11:03 AM
I can't say I'm suprised. For many families, it will be a lifestyle change to get away from SUVs. We've become accustomed to everything such a large vehicle provides, and convincing ourselves that we don't need them will not be easy.

It's not going to happen overnight.

Exactly....its going to take a complete paradigm shift in the american culture. Think about it, we love our SUV's, we love our muscle cars and we love our NASCAR. Everything about american society screams arrogance and over indulgence.

Rain Man
04-25-2006, 11:11 AM
Step 1 toward converting society to small, fuel-efficient vehicles: make parking meter spaces half as long on every other block, and write tickets if a car overhangs and doesn't pay both meters.

Step 2: make all parking lots have a bunch of spaces up front near the handicapped spots that are 40 percent smaller than normal spots, for small cars only.

ct
04-25-2006, 11:17 AM
Step 1 toward converting society to small, fuel-efficient vehicles: make parking meter spaces half as long on every other block, and write tickets if a car overhangs and doesn't pay both meters.

Step 2: make all parking lots have a bunch of spaces up front near the handicapped spots that are 40 percent smaller than normal spots, for small cars only.

Or just drive the price of gas to $10/gallon.

morphius
04-25-2006, 11:21 AM
ROFL

DETROIT (Reuters) - U.S. consumers bought vehicles with big, gas-guzzling engines at an unchanged rate in the first three months of the year despite rising gas prices, according to a survey released on Monday.

In the first quarter, about 25 percent of all new vehicles sold in the United States were equipped with eight- cylinder engines, according to sales trends analyzed by the Power Information Network, a data tracking service of consulting firm J.D. Power and Associates.

That market share level for V8s -- typically the most powerful engines used in trucks and large sport utility vehicles -- was unchanged from the average of 25 percent in the fourth quarter, according to the Power Information Network.

The market share of six- and four-cylinder engine-vehicles have also not budged in the face of higher gasoline prices, now above $3 per gallon in many U.S. markets, J.D. Power said.

Six-cylinder engines represented just over 40 percent of new-vehicle sales over the past nine months, while four- cylinder engines have accounted for just over 30 percent, the firm said.

If that trend holds, it would be good news for General Motors Corp., which has staked its product strategy this year to the launch of a new line of SUVs, including the Tahoe and the Yukon, which run on V8 engines.

"So far, the perceived gas price increases have not had any discernible impact on new-vehicle buying patterns, at least with regard to the size of the engine," said Tom Libby, an industry analyst at the Power Information Network.

Despite fears of a consumer backlash against SUVs in the face of higher oil prices, few analysts expect U.S. drivers will defect in large numbers to smaller cars featuring four- cylinder engines this year.

Rather, most forecast gains for cross-over utility vehicles, which are built on car platforms, and even luxury sedans at the expense of the SUV market.

Those marginal shifts in demand are widely tracked since the overall U.S. auto market is expected to be flat at best this year at just under 17 million vehicles sold.

"Gas prices are certainly becoming a popular dinner and water cooler discussion topic, but consumers appear to be conditioned to prices at current levels," said Jeff Schuster, executive director of global forecasting at J.D. Power.
Of course how many of those V8 have the technology that shuts down half the cylinders to conserve gas?

Donger
04-25-2006, 11:26 AM
Of course how many of those V8 have the technology that shuts down half the cylinders to conserve gas?

Don't those V8s only do that at highway/low load driving.

Rain Man
04-25-2006, 11:26 AM
Or just drive the price of gas to $10/gallon.

...and give the money as tax credits to people with small cars or public transportation receipts. Brilliant!

morphius
04-25-2006, 11:28 AM
Don't those V8s only do that at highway/low load driving.
I think so, but haven't looked into that technology much at all. But still, a lot of miles put on vehicles are on highways.

picasso
04-25-2006, 11:43 AM
And, in the words of Bubba, I do feel your pain. You're one of those that HAS to drive a vehicle that gets shitty mpg so that you can earn money.

I think it's going to be a weird season. Prices typically go up at the pump this time of year anyway, but they've gone up higher than I expected. I thought we'd see national averages near $2.75 by summer and we're at $2.91 now. I have a suspicion that they are going to start heading down over the next two months, though.

Of course they will go down, there is an election coming up. That was the whole point of his speech today. That and having Bill Frist find some guilt on the oil companies thus charging congress in taking back tax dollars as the penalty. BIG FRICKIN' DEAL!!!! Congress isn't gonna give me back the money that went in my tank in the last year.
Prices will go up because it has been benchmarked and what better catalyst than the President of Iran being threatened of war raising crude to $100 a barrel in the last year of the Bush administration. It will go right back up and worse! As well as the profits of oil companies. If you say that the oil companies only receive at the most a dime of profit per gallon of gas can you explain why Bush is announcing sending the dogs to investigate price gouging? That is if you believe what Bush is saying to the public is factual and not his retarded puppet act.

Donger
04-25-2006, 11:45 AM
If you say that the oil companies only receive at the most a dime of profit per gallon of gas can you explain why Bush is announcing sending the dogs to investigate price gouging? That is if you believe what Bush is saying to the public is factual and not his retarded puppet act.

One word: politics.

Rain Man
04-25-2006, 11:47 AM
Of course how many of those V8 have the technology that shuts down half the cylinders to conserve gas?

I hadn't heard about that. That's cool.

picasso
04-25-2006, 11:48 AM
One word: politics.

Two words: dirty politics

Donger
04-25-2006, 11:49 AM
I hadn't heard about that. That's cool.

It's been around since the 1980s, IIRC. Cadillac, I think.

Donger
04-25-2006, 11:49 AM
Two words: dirty politics

Now you're just being redundant.

Rain Man
04-25-2006, 11:51 AM
It's been around since the 1980s, IIRC. Cadillac, I think.

Is that the Northstar System? I didn't think anyone ever used it.

Donger
04-25-2006, 11:53 AM
Is that the Northstar System? I didn't think anyone ever used it.

I don't know. Where's that GM geek when we need him?

ct
04-25-2006, 12:05 PM
...and give the money as tax credits to people with small cars or public transportation receipts. Brilliant!

Even better!!

Calcountry
04-25-2006, 01:19 PM
I'm not talking about making rules for all time...this is just an interim solution. You're talking about an entire system of economics. I'm talking about the ability to be able to have the quality of life without bleeding each other dry. There has to be a future without gasoline in vehicles that everybody needs. It not as if lowering the gas prices is going to make everything better...but that's another topic. In times of crisis in our country's past American business has made sacrifices to help the greater good. This is one of those times.How about this for a compromise. The oil companies match the government, penny for penny on a price roll back, vis a vis the excise taxes that the government is taking.

If you think the government NEEDS the money that they are profiteering, gouging, extorting, bending over the POOR people who MUST fill up, then there is no more sense in debating this.

The high price of gasoline, is more the governments fault, than the oil companies.

The government, now will screw it up even more. They are going to create an industry, that won't give a damn if the trucks get to the gas stations on time, because there ain't no money in it for them anyway.

Sorry if it hurts you, but that is a capitalist system.

Calcountry
04-25-2006, 01:33 PM
Yes, but what we're talking about the price and how it relates to the increase in demand relevant to supply - or so what we've been told.I don't know what you are trying to say, but this is what I know.

If Demand goes up, and all other variables are held constant, then Price goes up, quantity Supplied goes up.
The converse is also true if Demand goes down.

If Supply goes down, and all other variables are held constant, then the price for that product goes up, and Quantity supplied goes down.

The converse of this situation is true if supply goes up.

The Demand curve, is INDEPENDANT of the Supply curve, they are two separate mathematical functions, that have their own set of coefficients and variables that will affect their relative elasticity, or slope.

The Demand for gas is inelastic, in other words, a big change in the price of gasoline will effect a relatively small change in the quantity Demanded(note I didn't say "demand"), in the short run. In the longer term, Demand for gasoline, is much more elastic, and even now market forces are correcting the quantity of gas that is demanded.

What we have in the world wide gasoline market is both an increase in Demand(China and India's growth), and a Decrease in Supply. Iraq, and Iran, as well as Venezuela's production going on and off line, environmental restrictions on the prospecting for new supplies.

Our economy is based on oil, because oil, up until this point in history, has been the overall cheapest and easiest fuel that can be exploited, harnessed, and utilized for the "common good" of mankind everywhere.

Calcountry
04-25-2006, 01:39 PM
Oh? You think that the grid could handle the additional demand load of millions of cars being charged?Us Californian's know all about rotating power outages. lol

oldandslow
04-25-2006, 01:49 PM
Bunnytrader said...

The Demand for gas is inelastic, in other words, a big change in the price of gasoline will effect a relatively small change in the quantity Demanded(note I didn't say "demand"), in the short run. In the longer term, Demand for gasoline, is much more elastic, and even now market forces are correcting the quantity of gas that is demanded.

I agree with most of your earlier post, with this exception. I do not think we are anywhere near the point where long term demand is being lessened. Indeed, at this point, worldwide demand will match any small decrease that might occur here.

The problem, I fear, is that the 85/90 mb (and most of the current research indicates that) threshhold in supply is not going to be surpassed. As long as world supply remains constant and demand worldwide increases, well you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what price is going to do. As it should, btw.

Calcountry
04-25-2006, 02:16 PM
Bunnytrader said...

The Demand for gas is inelastic, in other words, a big change in the price of gasoline will effect a relatively small change in the quantity Demanded(note I didn't say "demand"), in the short run. In the longer term, Demand for gasoline, is much more elastic, and even now market forces are correcting the quantity of gas that is demanded.

I agree with most of your earlier post, with this exception. I do not think we are anywhere near the point where long term demand is being lessened. Indeed, at this point, worldwide demand will match any small decrease that might occur here.

The problem, I fear, is that the 85/90 mb (and most of the current research indicates that) threshhold in supply is not going to be surpassed. As long as world supply remains constant and demand worldwide increases, well you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what price is going to do. As it should, btw.Fear not, substitute goods rapidly become economically viable as the price rises too, however, the bad news is, they will come on line only as oil remains above thier "viability floor price." Bad news for the poor folk who want to drive their SUV's to work at McDonalds. Good news for people who just want to be able to fuel their vehicles at a price they can afford.

I am already seeing more stories about this bio diesel stuff. I even had a customer drive up in a converted p.o.s. that he bought for the sole purpose of driving arround town.

Do any of you environmentalists think that we will ever truely be green if it isn't profitable to be green? :hmmm: Now just think about that for a minute.

oldandslow
04-25-2006, 02:30 PM
The way it is, imho, of course:

The planet earth is struggling to meet our demand for oil. Screaming about the pain of high gasoline prices will not magically make God insert more oil into the ground. Get used to it, get into rehab, go see your therapist, get a hybrid or a biodiesel car or, better still, a bicycle - but, whatever you do, get over it.

The era of cheap oil and gasoline is dead. There is no "gasoline price gouging" in the United States, or anywhere.

For all of the bloviating by front pagers and other various sources about "gas price gouging", you'd think there was a regular old populist revolution gettin' revved up around here. We're gonna line up our Subarus and Golfs and Hyundais and, yes, our Priuses, and all go drive down and storm the local Chevron or Conoco or Stinker or whatever and nationalize our rightful share of Houston's deadly cocktail.

Message to all of you: put down the car keys and step away from the ignition. This is going to hurt.

To start simply: American oil companies have about as much to do with the price of oil as I do. It's very simple, really: while America uses 25 percent of the world's oil, we control just 3 percent of global supply. While American oil companies may develop oil fields all over the world, they mostly only actually OWN the oil they've leased from the U.S. government (at rock-bottom prices, I might add).

For those of you who studied party economics in college, an analogy: if you have 12 beers, and your friend has only one, and then your friend drinks his beer, how much are your 12 beers worth?

The answer: whatever your friend is willing to pay for them.

America has drunk its beer. In fact, America drank its beer way back in the 1970's - that's when domestic oil production peaked, and has been in gradual decline ever since. So all those domestic oil fields that Big Oil gets for cheap from Uncle Sam don't add up to much anymore.

And, for the most part ever since the U.S. peak, OPEC has set the price of oil.

In the old days, if OPEC wanted oil to be cheap to, say, weaken the Soviet Union in the late 1980's ... oila! Oil drops to below $10 a barrel, and the oil-export-dependent Soviet economy collapses. If OPEC gets pissed about American policy toward Palestine, or Venezuela has a revolution, or a Nigerian dictator farts, or Dubai needs to build a new half-million-square-foot, indoor, artificial ski slope for the kids to play in, oil prices climb.

BUT ... the days of two-way (i.e. up & down) OPEC price control are quickly coming to an end. OPEC can't make the price of oil come down anymore. Sorry about that, but it's true.

So how does this relate to Exxon or Chevron or Texaco, your pain at the pump, and why there's no gas price gouging?

An explanation, by way of another analogy:

Say your parents bought their house in a lower middle class neighborhood for $40,000 several years ago. The neighborhood - while it had some nice areas - was mostly inhabited by middle-class government civil-service types, small-time lawyers, artists, school teachers etc.

Skip to 2006. The town has undergone a major real-estate boom. That medium-sized house in Cleveland Park is now worth well over a million.

What did your parents do to earn this windfall? Not much. Mom still complains about the hideous, browning (but original!) 1960's linoleum in the kitchen. The bathrooms are falling apart. The yard is small.

That house is worth what it is worth because so many people want to live there, but so few people are selling homes there.

The same is true for American oil companies: the vast majority of the oil they're selling now - the oil that's generating these windfall profits - they originally developed years and years ago, as a result of very risky investments in drilling they made when the price of oil was very low.

From hearing all the complaints about "price gouging," you'd think that being a major oil company would be a great business to be in.

But if that were the case, you'd expect their stock prices to act like they were in a great business by, for example, having higher price-to-earnings ratios than the average large company. But in fact, that's not the case.

The bottom line is that the stocks of these companies are priced in a manner that indicates investors don't think they have a great future, and their profit margins indicate that they're having to spend a lot of money (more than the typical large corporation) in order to generate their profits.

There has indeed been something of a windfall over the past quarter or two, but that's almost always the case in a commodity industry when prices for the raw material rise. The reason is that in a normal market, companies will price whatever they're selling based on its replacement cost, which in a rising market is going to be more than its historical cost. But this kind of windfall effect tends to be temporary, and it's simply undeniable that increased prices DO tend to drive down demand, at least temporarily, which is probably the only thing that kept us from having long gas lines and severe shortages in the aftermath of Katrina.

But what was worth $8 a barrel when they drilled in the 80's is now worth $70 a barrel - because, that's how much it costs now to get a new barrel of oil out of the ground. The easy oil is gone. The cheap stuff is all burnt up.

So basically, gasoline prices are high because Americans want - nay, believe we deserve - more of it than the market can deliver.

But if we buy into the lie that there is "price gouging," we could very well destroy any hope we have for a progressive energy policy.

This is essentially an issue that boils down to the core failure of our nation's energy policy.

First, American energy policy is lopsidedly supply-sided - that is, when we want more energy, our first thought is, "Let's just make more!"

By accusing Big Oil of price gouging, we are essentially denying the root cause of high prices: Americans want more oil than the world is capable of producing, or is capable of selling us at a lower price. At the same time, a couple of other countries are thinking, hmmm, we wouldn't mind some of that oil ourselves. It's only a matter of a few years before China is using more oil than we do.

In short, we are sucking on a straw that is drawing from a dry well, and we have the audacity to accuse the dry well of ripping us off?

In fact, high prices tell us something about our behavior that no other signal can tell us: that is, we need to change our behavior. We need to change the fuels we use. We need to use more public transportation, and ride our bikes, and walk more. We need to car pool. We need to get Detroit of its lazy ass and pass laws that force them to make cars that get better gas mileage.

We need to bring on the biodiesel/plug-in-hybrid/wind/solar/geothermal/hydrogen/whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-doesn't-involve -burning-rocks-or-other-former-carbon-based-life-forms- energy economy, and we need it YESTERDAY.

But if we keep falling into this trap that high energy prices are somehow due to greedy oil companies - and, make no mistake, they may be greedy, but they're not to blame for high prices - we will NEVER be able to advance these kinds of solutions. The reason: accusations of price gouging reinforces the frame that the problem is high prices, when the problem is back-asswards irresponsible energy policies.

So ... dear repubs and Democrats who think the price of gasoline is set in dark, smoke-filled conference rooms in Houston, please redirect your anger away from the ghost of price gouging and toward the reality of the end of the oil era.

Calcountry
04-25-2006, 02:53 PM
[QUOTE=oldandslow]But what was worth $8 a barrel when they drilled in the 80's is now worth $70 a barrel - because, that's how much it costs now to get a new barrel of oil out of the ground. The easy oil is gone. The cheap stuff is all burnt up.

QUOTE]Outstanding post!:clap: The best I have read on the subject here to date.


I would like to expand on this part of your post a little.

Consider the M2 money supply in circulation in the 1980. Of course, the total wealth of the country(grandma's flatbush home) was only worth 60 gr back then, now a million or something).

That means the money supply has GREATLY increased. The average person has more dollar bills to buy a diminishing supply of gasoline. When you take that into effect, there is an inflationary element in the dollar denominated commodity.

IOW, in real terms, the gasoline still costs about as much in a relative sense as it did in teh 70's. Sorry if all you McDonalds workers budgeted your gas money to DVD's and Ipods, but back in the 70s we didn't have a lot of that chit that we HAD TO HAVE. We used that money for gas. The average "working man" used a higher percent of his disposable income on gas back then, than they do today. No wonder, people bitch about SUV's costing 100 bucks to fill up, but fill them up anyway.

Because they have the money to do it. They just get a second on their half million dollar home that they bought 3 years ago for 200K.

BigRedChief
04-25-2006, 07:42 PM
Those frigging big oil companies are still getting big tax write offs/breaks from the 70's. They make 10 billion in profit in one quarter and we still have to give them tax breaks? Thats obscene.