Gas Prices.

[SDW2001]

Have you heard about this in the US? True, we pay less than anyone in the world...but the price of gas in the Northeast want up TEN CENTS a gallon last week alone. Predictions are for record levels very soon.

IMO, this is another staged crisis by the oil companies. The last time we saw this, they jacked the price up by 70 cents a gallon and eventually lowerd it by 25. "Wow!", we said. "Gas prices are down"! I do not believe there is any real shortage of supply. I'm sorry...I just don't.

Funny, the last time prices skyrocketed I had just bought a Maxima with a big V6 in it. I love paying $1.89 a gallon! This time, I just bough an SUV (also with a six...thank God). Figures.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/24gasprices.html

[Aquafire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SDW2001
Have you heard about this in the US? True, we pay less than anyone in the world...
I can't say less than the arab states that have abundant gas ( petrol )
But here in Australia we pay an average of $1.00 per litre ( that's a bit over two pints ).

Converted into US currency that means we're paying about 35 cents per pint..

In US currency, that's $2.80 per US Gallon

[BR]

I'm sure it's somehow the Democrats' fault.

[iBrowse]

I was noticing this last night when I stopped for gas. Three months ago I was cheering "Yeah, gas is back down to $1.56" and last night I paid $1.78. The year before I got my first car it was $1.08, it started climbing soon after, then a couple years ago it just kept getting worse. :mad:

[BR]

Originally posted by iBrowse
I was noticing this last night when I stopped for gas. Three months ago I was cheering "Yeah, gas is back down to $1.56" and last night I paid $1.78. The year before I got my first car it was $1.08, it started climbing soon after, then a couple years ago it just kept getting worse. :mad:

There was a burst in an oil pipeline near phoenix. Gas prices in Los Angeles jumped 25 cents to 2 bucks in the last week. We still should be happy that we aren't paying 3 or 4. Gas prices have not increased in price at the rate of inflation over the last 30 years.

[The General]

Originally posted by Aquafire
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SDW2001
Have you heard about this in the US? True, we pay less than anyone in the world...
I can't say less than the arab states that have abundant gas ( petrol )
But here in Australia we pay an average of $1.00 per litre ( that's a bit over two pints ).

Converted into US currency that means we're paying about 35 cents per pint..

In US currency, that's $2.80 per US Gallon

Yeah, and the first thing he said was we pay less than everyone else. :)

[segovius]

Originally posted by The General
Yeah, and the first thing he said was we pay less than everyone else. :)

Not for much longer apparently - looks like the rises are set to be the highest in history (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2060592).

I had a friend once who was a rabid right-wing Thatcherite when she whose name must not be uttered was still wielding the handbag, he lost his house, business and car as a result of some law the Tories passed and was literally on the street with his wife and 2 kids.

I put him up for a while and when I asked his thoughts on the matter he said (and this is a direct quote) 'yeah Sedge, it's realy frightening man....just imagine what could have happened if Labour were in power'.

I mean is there a training programme or something or are you guys just some kind of savants ?

You guys crack me up, you really do ;)

[rok]

guess it's a good thing i just bought a car that gets almost 30 miles to the gallon consistently. :D

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Aquafire
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SDW2001
Have you heard about this in the US? True, we pay less than anyone in the world...
I can't say less than the arab states that have abundant gas
Aren't fuels refined from crude almost completely subsidized in some of the smaller oil-rich gulf states?

[torifile]

Why haven't the US oil reserves been opened? This is ridiculous, really.

I'm now riding my bike A LOT more to cut down on driving. I drove a total of 20 miles last week. Nothing like getting into shape and saving some money doing it.

[Scott]

What major event happened in the northeast two weeks ago. Hummmm my anticorporate memory fails me.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by torifile
Why haven't the US oil reserves been opened? This is ridiculous, really.

I'm now riding my bike A LOT more to cut down on driving. I drove a total of 20 miles last week. Nothing like getting into shape and saving some money doing it.
Why should they be opened? Are we really in the midst of some kind of a crisis just because gas prices have gone from ridiculously cheap to slightly less ridiculously cheap over the past half decade?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by torifile
Why haven't the US oil reserves been opened? This is ridiculous, really.

I'm now riding my bike A LOT more to cut down on driving. I drove a total of 20 miles last week. Nothing like getting into shape and saving some money doing it.

Opening the reserves is useless. Clinton did it, and it was nothing but politics. The fact is that opening the Strategic Petrol. Reserve would have NO effect on gas prices.

Eugene:


Why should they be opened? Are we really in the midst of some kind of a crisis just because gas prices have gone from ridiculously cheap to slightly less ridiculously cheap over the past half decade?

BTW, I didn't make the Gulf States comment you credited me for. There are only two reasons gas isn't $.19 a gallon righ now:

1) Taxes (to the tune of 50-60% of the price)
2) The Oil Cartel's artificial inflation of prices.

Despite what many believe, we are in no anger in running out of oil any time in the next 200 years. The whole "crisis" is bullshit. The only supply problem we have is actually a refinery problem.

BR:


'm sure it's somehow the Democrats' fault.

I know you're joking, but in a manner of speaking it is. The Demcorats didn't allow offshore drilling in the Gulf, which houses perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels of oil. They didn't support development of new refineries during the 80's and 90's despite soaring demand. The Democrats have supported an extreme environmental agenda, which has hurt the energy supply and capacity in the country. It's also hurt the timber industry VERY badly, as federal forest regualtions (until just recently) have prevented logging in places where it is needed badly.

[Luca]

Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?

err....because they're Republicans ?

[trumptman]

The complaints I have read that cause this "manipulation" to occur more easily is the government ordered mixing of gas according to different areas of the United States.

The last time I was doing a cross country trek, there was a severe shortage of gas in Ohio. People would ask why gas couldn't be brough in via the other localities, it is because that gas is mixed different and is not allowed to be sold in Ohio.

If you look up the Phoenix story there are occasional sidenotes about them finally suspending this requirement so they could bring some gas into the place.

I know California is currently fighting, (and folks we are as liberal as they come out here) a gas requirement that requires us to use a certain amount of Ethanol in our gas.

Here is a link about MTBE raising prices, this isn't the gas companies, but the producers of "oxygenites" (pardon the likely wrong spelling) which are government mandated to make fuel cleaner burning.

Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/08/21/rtr1063905.html)

Also someone mentioned that there was no East Coast event that could have raised prices? I do remember this large BLACKOUT that occured. Last time I checked refineries and things of that nature needed electricity. Could be wrong though...:lol:

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Opening the reserves is useless. Clinton did it, and it was nothing but politics. The fact is that opening the Strategic Petrol. Reserve would have NO effect on gas prices.

Eugene:




BTW, I didn't make the Gulf States comment you credited me for. There are only two reasons gas isn't $.19 a gallon righ now:

1) Taxes (to the tune of 50-60% of the price)
2) The Oil Cartel's artificial inflation of prices.

Despite what many believe, we are in no anger in running out of oil any time in the next 200 years. The whole "crisis" is bullshit. The only supply problem we have is actually a refinery problem.

BR:




I know you're joking, but in a manner of speaking it is. The Demcorats didn't allow offshore drilling in the Gulf, which houses perhaps hundreds of billions of barrels of oil. They didn't support development of new refineries during the 80's and 90's despite soaring demand. The Democrats have supported an extreme environmental agenda, which has hurt the energy supply and capacity in the country. It's also hurt the timber industry VERY badly, as federal forest regualtions (until just recently) have prevented logging in places where it is needed badly.


Hmmmm? Imagine that. I seem to remember proponents of the war in Iraq saying that fuel prices would be down after the war. So it was a good thing. Hmmmmm? :lol:


PS. By the way most experts are predicting around 150 years bfore we run out of fossil fuels. I for one do happen to care about our children in the next few generations! And just because 150 years seems like a long time ( about the year 1850 looking backwards to put it in perspective ) things will get bad long before that. Food for thought. Perhaps you should have a word with dubbya's oil company executive friends?;)

[rok]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The Democrats have supported an extreme environmental agenda, which has hurt the energy supply and capacity in the country. It's also hurt the timber industry VERY badly, as federal forest regualtions (until just recently) have prevented logging in places where it is needed badly.

i still say require any retail facility that covers more than a few acres of land (i am looking in YOUR direction, wal-mart, and your airfield-sized asphault n' gravel roof) to allow for installation of solar fields or windwill farms on top (use tax incentives to get those chains to buy in, though i would hope they would do it just because it makes friggin' sense and is a good thing to do), to put some of that bulldozed land back to good use. considering the fact that there's like half a million wal-marts, targets, sam's clubs, and other warehouse style stores cropping up everywhere, as well as huge malls that have been around forever, you've got a lot of unused resources on top of those buildings that could be helping us out.

the problem with the current "drill more" philosophy, i think, is that it allows the government to get lazy and not devote any resources (or thought, even) to finding any alternatives. sure, there's a law of diminishing returns -- after a certain point, you have to drill more to keep things functioning properly -- but does anyone think we've gotten that desperate yet?

'course, maybe if i owned an suv, i might be getting desperate right about now. :)

[Randycat99]

I hope people here who think solar panels are the cure have done a bit of research before concluding it as the instant solution. You don't just put a panel up, and viola, instant, free power for tracks and tracks of neighborhood. It takes a considerable amount of surface area to generate anything reasonably useful (making a Walmart roof look pretty pointless). Then you have to account for additional support to keep them clean and maintained because they certainly aren't going to stay that way by themself on a Walmart roof after city rain, dust, and fall-out. Then you will likely have to address cooling issues, because solar cells drop efficiency when they get hot. Unfortunately, that is exactly what things do when sitting out in the sun. Then you have to account for the loss in efficiency over time due to aging. Considering how much will be spent on them in the first place (industrial solar cells are not exactly cheap devices), you won't be looking forward to paying for them all over again once the efficiency has dropped to below useable levels. After accounting for all those factors, you may find that solar cells are hardly worth the trouble for the return you get out of them. They are neat devices and all, but far, far away from the premise of "put'em up and free, free power for all". "Free" doesn't come into the scene until after a severe financial reaming to pay for the devices themselves.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe there is a reason everybody hasn't jumped on the solar cell bandwagon. They aren't as practical and troublefree as you think. If you were an energy developer you might conclude that your money would be better utilized into a nuclear plant or top-notch oil refinery. Solar cells are still just a "curiosity", as of yet.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Randycat99
I hope people here who think solar panels are the cure have done a bit of research before concluding it as the instant solution. You don't just put a panel up, and viola, instant, free power for tracks and tracks of neighborhood. It takes a considerable amount of surface area to generate anything reasonably useful (making a Walmart roof look pretty pointless). Then you have to account for additional support to keep them clean and maintained because they certainly aren't going to stay that way by themself on a Walmart roof after city rain, dust, and fall-out. Then you will likely have to address cooling issues, because solar cells drop efficiency when they get hot. Unfortunately, that is exactly what things do when sitting out in the sun. Then you have to account for the loss in efficiency over time due to aging. Considering how much will be spent on them in the first place (industrial solar cells are not exactly cheap devices), you won't be looking forward to paying for them all over again once the efficiency has dropped to below useable levels. After accounting for all those factors, you may find that solar cells are hardly worth the trouble for the return you get out of them. They are neat devices and all, but far, far away from the premise of "put'em up and free, free power for all". "Free" doesn't come into the scene until after a severe financial reaming to pay for the devices themselves.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe there is a reason everybody hasn't jumped on the solar cell bandwagon. They aren't as practical and troublefree as you think. If you were an energy developer you might conclude that your money would be better utilized into a nuclear plant or top-notch oil refinery. Solar cells are still just a "curiosity", as of yet.


So you know what you do? You launch a group of satellites that will beam the energy from orbit. This would produce a much greater yield than any earth based panels. By the way not my idea. This was proposed years ago. Even if this didn't handle everything fossil fuel does today we still need to look for alternatives because the muck left over from the dinosaurs isn't going to last forever! What will happen is that oil will become so expensive these other methods will seem cheap by comparison.

[Moogs]

OMG spare us everyone from the partisan bunkola. We all pay the same price at the pumps. Big Oil lobbies and influences both Republicans and Democrats, presidents and mayors, etc. They invent supply crises when they need them, period. Has nothing to do with congressional or presidential politics.

THERE IS NO SUPPLY CRISIS.

It's very simple: for the last few months, prices have fluctuated between roughly $1.45 and $1.85 for midgrade depending on where you live. Everyone buys by the tank-full when it's low, and buys as many gallons as they need to get to the next "dip" when it's high. That is, they buy half a tank or less generally when prices are high.

The oil companies then jack up the prices by $.20 or $.30 for a few weeks, leave them there, then move them back down to the $1.75 mid-grade they were hoping everyone would buy originally. After getting shafted for a month, we see $1.75 mid-grade and go "WOW, look how low it is, I'm going to fill 'er up before prices go back to $1.95". We're puppets unless we decide to boycott on whatever basis we practically can by riding bikes more, picking a two or three day span when none of us buy any gas, etc.

The oil companies are manipulative fuking whores. End of story. Beyond Pretroleum my ass.

[Randycat99]

Originally posted by jimmac
So you know what you do? You launch a group of satellites that will beam the energy from orbit. This would produce a much greater yield than any earth based panels.

No argument here as far as it potentially offering greater capacity. However, not only would you be committed to a considerable cost penalty for the panels alone (as in the Earth-bound scenario), now you have an entire space program added in to make that happen. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but the stakes just grew many-fold with such a notion as that- FAR, FAR more than just proposing solar panels on the roof of every Walmart (which my post was specifically addressing, btw). Then theres the issue of space dust accumulation and incidental damage by speeding micro-particles upon a bulls-eye target the size of Kansas...hmmmm. :p

BTW, I'm not against the deployment of alternative energy. I'm just weighing in counterpoint to anyone who suggests that there are actually viable, drop-in alternatives to what we are using already all the while poo-pooing what the oil-driven energy industry makes possible in present day.

For the record, I do agree with the earlier point made that the oil industry is being a manipulative crisis-whore.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by The General
Yeah, and the first thing he said was we pay less than everyone else. :)

And like I said, I suspect even the USA doesn't get it a cheep cheep as the oil producing countries..

But hell, who gives a flying toss..as far as I am concerned, petrol ( gas ) should be much much higher priced.

We need to encourage more public transport infrastructure. Too much damage to the enviroment & to society in general has been caused by the damm stupid car..

I am not against cars per se, but its idiotic to see thousands of drivers all rushing to work each morning, in their individual cars, when a bus could carry up to 80 of them for a fraction of what it costs to feed their individual gas guzzlers..as well as park them...

As for me..I ride a bike...so I am laughing....

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?

Because that's a long term plan. Remember, the government doesn't go out an explore sources. It funds exploration...true.

Someone said it best when he said: We need a three week plan, a three month plan, and a three year plan"" on energy. Actualy, I'd add to that: "...and a 30 year plan". Alternate sources will take years to become viable. Until then we need oil. Lots of oil.

jimmac:

Hmmmm? Imagine that. I seem to remember proponents of the war in Iraq saying that fuel prices would be down after the war. So it was a good thing. Hmmmmm?


PS. By the way most experts are predicting around 150 years bfore we run out of fossil fuels. I for one do happen to care about our children in the next few generations! And just because 150 years seems like a long time ( about the year 1850 looking backwards to put it in perspective ) things will get bad long before that. Food for thought. Perhaps you should have a word with dubbya's oil company executive friends?

I never mentioned fuel prices...I don't think.

Perhaps you should provide some documentation or a plausible explanation for your thoughts. I believe if we stopped exploring for more oil we'd have about 200 years left. Or, let's use your number of 150. Who cares? It's irrelevant, because we won't be using gasoline power cars in 150 years and you know it. This is assuming we stop looking. There are billions, maybe trillions of barrels offshore. Alaska alone has enough to supply this country for 40 years or more....and that's just 2% of the ANWR.

Don't panic, jimmac. The Democratic candidate for President will have enough gas t oget to the podium where he gives his concession speech.

;)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by rok
i still say require any retail facility that covers more than a few acres of land (i am looking in YOUR direction, wal-mart, and your airfield-sized asphault n' gravel roof) to allow for installation of solar fields or windwill farms on top (use tax incentives to get those chains to buy in, though i would hope they would do it just because it makes friggin' sense and is a good thing to do), to put some of that bulldozed land back to good use. considering the fact that there's like half a million wal-marts, targets, sam's clubs, and other warehouse style stores cropping up everywhere, as well as huge malls that have been around forever, you've got a lot of unused resources on top of those buildings that could be helping us out.

the problem with the current "drill more" philosophy, i think, is that it allows the government to get lazy and not devote any resources (or thought, even) to finding any alternatives. sure, there's a law of diminishing returns -- after a certain point, you have to drill more to keep things functioning properly -- but does anyone think we've gotten that desperate yet?

'course, maybe if i owned an suv, i might be getting desperate right about now. :)

Good one. Your idea re: Wal-Marts and what not is interesting and original. I don't think it is feasible though. You'd still have to get the power out of those places.

Randycat99:

What I'm trying to say is that maybe there is a reason everybody hasn't jumped on the solar cell bandwagon. They aren't as practical and troublefree as you think. If you were an energy developer you might conclude that your money would be better utilized into a nuclear plant or top-notch oil refinery. Solar cells are still just a "curiosity", as of yet.

Exactly.

Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically.

[rok]

Originally posted by Randycat99
I hope people here who think solar panels are the cure have done a bit of research before concluding it as the instant solution. You don't just put a panel up, and viola, instant, free power for tracks and tracks of neighborhood. It takes a considerable amount of surface area to generate anything reasonably useful (making a Walmart roof look pretty pointless). Then you have to account for additional support to keep them clean and maintained because they certainly aren't going to stay that way by themself on a Walmart roof after city rain, dust, and fall-out.

true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently?!? they have a considerable surface area. of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.

now, even if it isn't easy to pipe that energy out of that location, why couldn't you use that generation to help offset some of the power necessary to power that retail facility (and thereby save it for other local needs), through either solar or maybe windpower -- heck, those folks who don't want to see a windmill farm off their coastline probably would even blink if a windmill farm or two were built into the tops of some of those flat fields (which have lots of wind since they're usually just higher than the surrounding trees, but with a very even landscape to reduce unpredictable eddys (sp?)

or, hell, even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment. basically, people need to find some additional use to the area we are already gobbling up at a record pace (and note that this IS a compromise -- people still get all the retail offerings they want, but it also gives back to the community, too). otherwise, they just are not trying hard enough. period.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by rok
true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently??? they have a considerable surface area. of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.

now if you couldn't use that much space to help offset some of the power necessary to power that facility (and thereby save it for other local needs), through either solar or windpower (or even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment), then you just are not trying hard enough. period.

"Fuggin'" = Funniest Intentional Misspelling...EVAR.

As for the idea, let it go. It's time for it to die now. Let it be.

[Randycat99]

Originally posted by rok
true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently?!?

"ANY energy" is just wishful thinking. If it isn't enough to justify the cost of the panels and infrastructure, it is pointless...but as long as it is somebody else's money you are spending...

"ultra-useless heat generating"? Wait till you cover the roof with midnight blue solar cells. That'll be some heat generation!

"sun reflecting"? If it isn't reflected, it is absorbed, and that would turn your friendly Walmart into an oven, unless they crank up the A/C. More A/C means more power consumption, so was there really an improvement?

they have a considerable surface area.

In terms of building structures, yes. In terms of solar generation potential, no, not really. You shouldn't assume one implies the other.

of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.

Florescent tube lighting is quite energy-friendly, actually. The power for that would be peanuts compared to the extra A/C you would need to offset the heating caused by sufficient levels of natural lighting. My guess is that you simply have something personal against Walmart for some reason.

now, even if it isn't easy to pipe that energy out of that location, why couldn't you use that generation to help offset some of the power necessary to power that retail facility (and thereby save it for other local needs),...

If it is a wash, then a million dollars worth of solar cell equipment is a million dollars down the drain.

heck, those folks who don't want to see a windmill farm off their coastline probably would even blink if a windmill farm or two were built into the tops of some of those flat fields (which have lots of wind since they're usually just higher than the surrounding trees, but with a very even landscape to reduce unpredictable eddys (sp?)

It would be just like proposing a nuclear plant. Everybody will suddenly fallback to the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Plus there'll always be some nature conservationist group who would have a problem with you decimating some flat field with windmills. There's always some vital creature that you will be infringing upon.

or, hell, even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment.

Probably will be hot as hell on that rooftop- real pleasant place for a break area. A patch of foliage on a rooftop won't do jack for "giving something back to the environment", either.

basically, people need to find some additional use to the area we are already gobbling up at a record pace (and note that this IS a compromise -- people still get all the retail offerings they want, but it also gives back to the community, too). otherwise, they just are not trying hard enough. period.

Maybe the world would suddenly become a better place, or maybe it won't make a damn bit of difference. It's all just idle speculation at this point. Sounds fuzzy and flowery, but functionally dubious in the extreme.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by SDW2001

" Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically. "

Well it's a litle known fact that Australia is probably one of the most "urbanised" countries in the world. We also have to deal with geographical distances equal to anything in the USA.

Urban sprawl is as much an issue for us as it is for you.
Likewise, we've had to drag both state & federal governments by the ears to make them realise the long term issues of public transport, the ultimate unsustainability of private gas consumption vs public transport.

Like your government, ours is hooked on the excise tax it recieves from the oil companies & gas stations.
They're like mainlining junkies..intravenous tax from the bowser straight to their coffers.
It's all a matter of changing public attitudes as well as getting off the gas merry go round.

[rok]

agreed, sdw, i'll let it go... i can get a bit obsessive at times. :)

p.s. randycat, i don't have anything against wal-mart, per se. i do have a problem with real estate developers and chain warehouse-style stores knocking down dozens of acres of trees for no good purpose -- walmart suffers simply because they are so visible and fall into that category well, but they are certainly not the only ones. they are doing it a lot around my house now, with huge warehouse stores adding to ones that are not even fully utilized, just to add presence and offer "convenience."

heck, if i have a thing against anyone, it's probably target, since they just waylayed probably 20 acres for a target and parking accommodations simply so people in my town didn't have to drive 15 MINUTES to the target they just opened 6 MONTHS AGO).

and having just come from the big city, rooftop garden break areas do work, and are not that hot at all. you can't have 100 year old oaks up there, but you can get a decent number of 10 foot shade trees with little to no maintenance except watering. and they're no hotter than, say, sitting down in the parking lot under a shade tree to take lunch (and a helluva a lot more enjoyable than the nasty breakrooms of many retail stores, provided the weather accommodates). plus, you get a better view, a little privacy from the general public, and a slightly better breeze than ground level.

perhaps i am a bit oversensitive to the issue, because i just came from a concrete and steel metroplis, and i forgot how much i MISSED TREES and WIDE OPEN SPACES WITHOUT RETAIL OR ADS. and now they seem to be knocking them down and paving them over as fast as possible. plus, i can't get that stupid counting crows song outta my head. grrr...

damn, didn't i just say i was going to let it go? okay, must go to bed... will be calmer in the morning... i swear. where's my medication???

[Spart]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?

This type of knee-jerk statement is fundamentally wrong. It's a line that people have used for years, to the point that it's became a universally accepted truth, and as reflexive as kicking the doctor when he gets to banging on your knees.

You see, we have this problem. It's called the progression of technology. Environmentalists seem to be of the mind that if there were no oil industry-based Republican conspiracies in the way, we could snap our fingers and have non-oil power sources now. Availability that matches that of petroleum products now. Conversion of all older oil consuming products now.

It's so obviously impossible to do in a short time span that I find it funny that people exist who think it to be just the opposite.

Are we getting there? Yes. Does government pressure and money help out a lot? Yes, it does, and it exists.

If we collectively move our focus in such an extreme manner, bad things will happen. If you add up all the little crises that would result from giving the bird to big oil, you'd have an economic nightmare. We'd all be driving short range, slow, small fuel cell cars at an enormous personal expense while replacing our furnaces, lawn mowers & such, or else face supremely high gas prices as a result of frowning upon the use of gas; companies would see highly decreased profit or even loss at the expense of converting over to and replacing old technology all at once. There are all manner of things that would result from instant alternative energy. Could the US weather the storm? I think so, but it would suck like hell.

To top it off, we're already in a bad economic position where investing in environmentally friendly items is not in the scope of nearly everyone's budgets.

And the liberals, who are supposedly more representative of the poor, are the ones who want to force this on the poor. What happens to me and my '92 F-150? I'm still in high school, I can't afford anything like the environmentalists want.

Give it time. We will reach a point where the mass market alternative energy cars are a decade old or more, and poor students like myself wont have to take a hit for using them, as they'll be the norm. My F-150 will be a part of some nostalgic old guy's car collection. The diesel power plant in my town will be a nice place to visit and reminisce on the old days, back when a plume of black smoke could be seen rising to power everyone's air conditioners on the hottest days of summer.

Will this time be sometime in the near future? I'd like to think that, at the very least, the situation I described will be that of my grandchildren, if not my children.

The truth is for now, we have a massive infrastructure based around fossil fuels. For the past century, it's all we've known. That's a lot of replacing and upgrading to do. And while we're still reliant upon it, it's absolute madness to look the other way and let a situation that is bad now get more confused and worse.

If we stop "drilling for more oil", and stop mining coal, we're going to have one big mother of a problem. It would cause The Great Depression II. Think about it long enough and deep enough.

Time, people, time.

[Randycat99]

Excellent post!

[rok]

Originally posted by Randycat99
Excellent post!

thank you! oh wait, you probably weren't talking to me, huh? ;)

[Scott]

Originally posted by Aquafire
And like I said, I suspect even the USA doesn't get it a cheep cheep as the oil producing countries..

But hell, who gives a flying toss..as far as I am concerned, petrol ( gas ) should be much much higher priced.

We need to encourage more public transport infrastructure. Too much damage to the enviroment & to society in general has been caused by the damm stupid car..


...


Your higher price puts people out of work.

[Randycat99]

Hey, I like an outdoor break area just as much as the next guy, but the one thing that ruins it all for me are the smoking crowd. Sometimes I would enjoy feeling the light sunshine on my face and breathing in the outdoor air, but all that goes to hell when you got some f*cker next by smoking. That great fresh feeling goes to $hit when you have to smell that rancid odor with bits of ash blowing by you, and then goes the irritated eyes and runny nose. I know, where else are they going to smoke, right? I don't know, but it sure as hell ruins the outdoor experience for me. That is just a damn shame when the air in the break area ends up being worse than the "processed" air you get indoors. Now, I'm ranting... Usually, I'm a live and let live kind of guy, but my current work situation makes me believe more and more that smoking is a far more offensive habit than people are willing to acknowledge. It isn't just a "personal habit". It damn well sure has effects on the people around them, seemingly beyond the realm of that person's personal space (where what you do is your own business).

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Also someone mentioned that there was no East Coast event that could have raised prices? I do remember this large BLACKOUT that occured. Last time I checked refineries and things of that nature needed electricity. Could be wrong though...:lol:

When the cost of a barrel of oil decreases, it takes three months for a watered down decrease in the price of gas to reach the pump. When something not necessarily related to oil goes wrong in the world, prices at the pump go up immediately.

It's call price gouging.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by Scott
Your higher price puts people out of work.
Care to lay out your reasoning..?

[Luca]

I didn't have much time to post more elaborately on alternative energy sources. What I said was quite simplistic.

I do believe we should use oil just as we always have, just reduce the amount year after year as more alternative energy sources become better researched. It's not cut and dry, like "oil is evil and solar power is good." That's not true at all.

Another thing I think is that eventually, oil will run low and people will have to rely on other sources of energy. Like how the earth's population will eventually get too high and there will be mass famines. Yes, it will be a terrible crisis, but afterwards things might be better off.

I don't think oil will run out anytime soon though. Various studies have shown that oil would run out by 2000 or 2010 or 2020 or basically any year. They all say "30-70 years" but none of them have come true. What I think is that over time, it'll just get more and more expensive as methods for finding and extracting it get more expensive.

I have heard a bit about Shale Oil so I investigated more. I found this article on Google:

http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n4/Youngquist.html

It sounds as if there's a remarkable quantity of shale oil in the US, but it remains untapped due to the high cost. But in a few decades, if some of the major oil resources have run out, it might become cost effective. We'd pay a lot for gas, maybe even $3/gallon by today's dollars, but it would be better than having no oil at all. And perhaps it would accelerate the development of alternate forms of energy (which are already being developed).

[Scott]

Originally posted by Aquafire
Care to lay out your reasoning..?

Are you college educated?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Aquafire
Originally posted by SDW2001

" Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically. "

Well it's a litle known fact that Australia is probably one of the most "urbanised" countries in the world. We also have to deal with geographical distances equal to anything in the USA.

Urban sprawl is as much an issue for us as it is for you.
Likewise, we've had to drag both state & federal governments by the ears to make them realise the long term issues of public transport, the ultimate unsustainability of private gas consumption vs public transport.

Like your government, ours is hooked on the excise tax it recieves from the oil companies & gas stations.
They're like mainlining junkies..intravenous tax from the bowser straight to their coffers.
It's all a matter of changing public attitudes as well as getting off the gas merry go round.

Good point, but I don't think it will happen here---at least not for a long time. The American mentality is very different...too individidual. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it's bad...but the point is, it's true.

[SDW2001]

rok:

I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?

Simple. Consumer inertia.

When I was in Canada, I had not one but two cars that I converted to natural gas dual fuel - which meant I had a cylinder in the trunk for natural gas while keeping the gasoline tank intact. I did it mostly for environmental reasons (90% less emissions) and cost (50% cheaper).

Most of the time, I ran on natural gas, but if I couldn't find a station that had it, I switched to gasoline. Only a problem out in farm country.

Now, the technology for doing this has existed since Word War II, and all the parts for NG were made in Italy, where the conversion shop told me that up to 90% of the vehicles run on it (maybe they were exaggerating). There was a slight drop in the power output of the car, but there was a 50% drop in running the car! And that was more important.

The conversion was paid for by the various levels of the Canadian govt, which effectively made it free for me. No matter who I told this too, admiring the forward thinking of a country that promoted an alternate fuel like this, NOBODY wanted to convert their car. Excuses, excuses, excuses. My favorite being that the car would blow up like houses do when there is a leak, even though this has NEVER happened to an NG vehicle (you would more likely die from the gasoline explosion).

Yes, people complain about gas prices, but quite frankly, it obviously isn't hurting people enough. We have more cars on the road nowadays, people idling at drive-thru windows, etc.

The price of gasoline isn't stopping people from putting food on the table or a roof over their head.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by bunge
When the cost of a barrel of oil decreases, it takes three months for a watered down decrease in the price of gas to reach the pump. When something not necessarily related to oil goes wrong in the world, prices at the pump go up immediately.

It's call price gouging.
Of course it's price gouging, but I don't necessarily agree with the previous statement. When a Taiwanese chipmaker slumps and fails to produce enough chips, it raises prices. Those chips already in the channel don't sell at the previous prices. Resellers take into account the fact they'll be paying more for the next batch and immediately raise prices of what they have already.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by Randycat99
"ANY energy" is just wishful thinking. If it isn't enough to justify the cost of the panels and infrastructure, it is pointless...but as long as it is somebody else's money you are spending...

"ultra-useless heat generating"? Wait till you cover the roof with midnight blue solar cells. That'll be some heat generation!

"sun reflecting"? If it isn't reflected, it is absorbed, and that would turn your friendly Walmart into an oven, unless they crank up the A/C. More A/C means more power consumption, so was there really an improvement?

In terms of building structures, yes. In terms of solar generation potential, no, not really. You shouldn't assume one implies the other.

If it is a wash, then a million dollars worth of solar cell equipment is a million dollars down the drain.


RandyCat, I am not sure that you really know all that much about solar energy. Neither do I actually, although I hope to find out more - and hope to eventually install some solar panels on my roof.

I do know that the technology for the generation of electricity from sunlight is still not that efficient, with solar cells currently only able to convert about 12-15% of the solar energy into electricity. I also know that research into solar technology has increased this efficiency and decreased costs, and is expected to continue to do so. (Imagine if all the research and subsidy dollars wasted on inefficient, expensive, and dangerous nuclear energy had been spent on solar energy instead).

Finally, even at the current levels of efficiency, a massive rooftop solar array can and does work, and saves dollars too! Example (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=shellsolar&FC1=&FC2=%2FLeftHandNav%3FLeftNavState%3D0&FC3=%2Fshellsolar%2Fhtml%2Fiwgen%2Fnews_and_librar y%2Fpress_releases%2F2003%2Flong_island_0602.html&FC4=&FC5=) (After you click on Example, then look at the link "Shell Solar and PowerLight Corporation announce one-megawatt of solar electricity installed on New York rooftop" at the bottom of the page.)

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by SDW2001
rok:

I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).

I'm having a hard time finding any proof of this.

I did, however, find this (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/trees_are_america.htm) web page which states the following:

America still has 70 percent of the forest land it had in pre-Colonial days—about 737 million acres today.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
rok:

I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).


I'd really like to see some proof of this claim please. Also were they recently planted or mature? I have a real hard time swallowing this one.
As to the above post 70 percent is quite different ( although impressive and no doubt due to people being concerned about this in the first place ) from " more ".

[Spart]

Yeah, about that logging issue...

It may be a *major* problem in parts of the world where the existence of the rainforest is absolutely necessary for the existing ecosystem to carry on. You cut down the rainforest, you devastate natural habitats, animals die, the food chain is screwed, you abandon the continent after it's taken over by rabid rabbits and stump-dwelling insects.

That is a Ginormous™ problem. But I don't think it's the same at all, here. You see, we don't exactly have a lot of rainforests. We've got harsh winters and a wildly different climate. And -- left to their own devices -- the forests that existed pre-colonization would burn to the ground quite a bit, at least with regards to the mass majority. This was just the way that the forests worked. Some trees might burn and other, more brazen trees might survive, and in general the soil was kept in tip-top shape this way. Burnt stuff is great for plants, you know.

Thus the problem. We like to build houses out in the middle of the woods. And the people living in those houses don't give a rabid rabbit about "nature" this and "normal" that. They've got assets about to be destroyed by what is termed a "natural disaster," which could be called a "normal occurrence" with the same amount of correctness. So we fight the fires, and the natural cycle stops. Forests don't burn every once in a while, the soil isn't renewed, and we head off into a grey area where our convenience is more weighty a matter than our impact upon the natural world.

So we've got to do something about that. Believe it or not, logging is quite good for the ecosystem if done in the correct fashion. For example, it's usually a bad thing to take out big swaths of forest as a matter of convenience, then leave the place be after getting what we want. If you replant and fertilize the soil, and cut the trees away in a more organized manner such as strip logging, you're essentially replacing the link in the chain while taking something for yourself, the lumber. Not a bad deal, and we get to live in the woods as well.

You can't really do the same thing in a rainforest, as that type of forest doesn't like to burn down every few decades. There are also forests in the U.S. that do not exhibit this behavior, but they are few and far between in comparison with those that do, and it isn't really necessary to log them into oblivion.

I'm not saying that this is how it happens in the real world, which is the world driven by supposedly evil corporations with the agenda of "make more money." But it should be this way. Some things you just shouldn't mess with.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be.

SDW2001,

Just remember that a tree farm is not a forest.

Thanks.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Eugene
Of course it's price gouging, but I don't necessarily agree with the previous statement. When a Taiwanese chipmaker slumps and fails to produce enough chips, it raises prices. Those chips already in the channel don't sell at the previous prices. Resellers take into account the fact they'll be paying more for the next batch and immediately raise prices of what they have already.

Add collusion to the mix and we can find a much bigger problem.

[burningwheel]

it went up 20 cents here in the detroit area

[Spart]

Originally posted by bunge
SDW2001,

Just remember that a tree farm is not a forest.

Thanks.

Don't tell me you think that the forests and timberland should be left unchanged, whether it be by fire or man?

It's really, really simple. We settle here, and it sucks when our houses burn down due to normal, natural occurrences. So, we fight the fire. We stop the renewal cycle. We change nature. We stop it where we see fit.

Your way, and you are changing the whole cycle, and getting a different result that influenced by our presence. In other words, it's fake nature. Just because you see a nice, tree-filled wilderness that stretches for miles on end doesn't mean you should shriek when you see a lumberjack stroll by. The forest is only a *permanent* feature because we made it that way by changing nature. Period.

If you want to put an artificial link in the cycle to replace the link you destroy by fighting natural forest fires, you cut out portions of the forests that are naturally supposed to burn down, replant, and fertilize to the equivalency of post-forest fire soil. It's not changing the whole cycle, destroying the soil and leaving the forests to artificially stay because we *think* that's how it's supposed to be. It's a natural result, and you just don't want to see it that way because you fancy your preferred, unnatural result.

I am by no means advocating that we cut down all the trees west of the Missouri to the Rockies -- far from it. I'm saying we should be foresting the smart way, the way that lets things go on like they're supposed to.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Spart
Don't tell me you think that the forests and timberland should be left unchanged, whether it be by fire or man?

No. I like lumberjacks and I hope they can survive or be brought back. I don't like companies that clear cut and I wouldn't care if they all died. A forest can easily handle intelligent cutting, like the ocean can handle intelligent fishing.

My comment was to say that counting the number of trees doesn't mean squat. Forests have been lost forever and that's a bigger problem than just the number of trees.

[Spart]

Fair enough.

Back to the topic and away from the idiocy that is strap-yourself-to-a-tree environmentalism.

Labor Day weekend, I'm driving from southern Iowa to the middle of Colorado. Now, this sort of road trip sucks under just about any circumstances, but add in skyrocketing gas prices and it doesn't seem so close anymore.

Driving a newish Dodge Dakota, with a V8. Not sure what the highway mileage is but I have a feeling that I'll be watching that odometer like a hawk.

One more thing I'd like to add in. Europeans complaining (no, I refer not to the Aussies or people living in anywhere else but Europe) about how they pay so much for their litres of petrol are a bit off base. They seem to forget the vastness of the United States. A jaunt in England is nothing in comparison to what people consider major traveling here. There's a reason why we use more gas per capita: our country is so damned big.

[Randycat99]

Originally posted by Chinney
RandyCat, I am not sure that you really know all that much about solar energy.

Is this to mean that others here do? Why just single me out? I threw down some basic issues to counter the notion that solar is some kind of homerun solution.


Finally, even at the current levels of efficiency, a massive rooftop solar array can and does work, and saves dollars too!

I stand corrected, then. Do note that they speak of how much savings in energy cost, how much pollution is saved, how much power is generated, and some minor expenses saved for what would otherwise be regular roof maintenance, but they don't reveal how expensive the installation ended up being, how long it will last, or the reduction in efficiency over that lifetime. I'm sure it was a pretty penny which will put the "recouped energy savings" figure in the red for some time. As you would expect, the article is pretty upbeat. Maybe it's because they want to sell you some solar cells? ;) Good find, though!

[Chinney]

Originally posted by Randycat99
Is this to mean that others here do? Why just single me out? I threw down some basic issues to counter the notion that solar is some kind of homerun solution.

I stand corrected, then. Do note that they speak of how much savings in energy cost, how much pollution is saved, how much power is generated, and some minor expenses saved for what would otherwise be regular roof maintenance, but they don't reveal how expensive the installation ended up being, how long it will last, or the reduction in efficiency over that lifetime. I'm sure it was a pretty penny which will put the "recouped energy savings" figure in the red for some time. As you would expect, the article is pretty upbeat. Maybe it's because they want to sell you some solar cells? ;) Good find, though!

Thanks. And I agree that it is not an immediate panacea. The big problem is that it requires a large investment that takes years to recoup. I was told that, at current levels of efficiency and with the current price of panels vs. the current market price of electricity, the time it takes is about 20 years for installations on individual houses. That is a long time.

On the other hand, the efficiency of panels is steadily getting better and the price of other sources of electricity is steadily increasing. Consider as well that many other sources of electricity require large initial outlays (nuclear generating station anyone?). Solar energy is rapidly becoming competitive.

I heard an interesting interview with a representative of a large corporation in the wake of the power outage last week in Ontario and the northeastern States. He said that his company simply cannot afford to rely solely on the power grid anymore and would likely purchase a massive solar array to install on their huge roof and factory grounds. On good days, they hope to be selling surplus power back to the grid (reverse metering - the technology is already here and is being used, even in some private homes that have windmills and/or solar panels). On less sunny days, they would still have to buy some power from the grid. If the grid goes down, they could still operate at normal or almost normal levels, depending on the day.

Now imagine if all the enormous factory, warehouse, and Wall-Mart rooftops in Canada and the U.S. were similarly equipped.

A change is gonna come.... And, likely, it is not going to come because environmentalits and governments make it come (as sympathetic as I am to environmentalists and to the public interest). It will come because of self-interest of corporations and individuals, as other sources of energy become more expensive per kilowatt/hour and solar energy continues to become less expensive per kilowatt/hour. And nobody is taxing the sun.

[Moogs]

This load of crap compliments of the Washington Post and your local Oil Whore Analysts:

The tried-and-true
In addition, a rupture in a gasoline pipeline that provides Phoenix with about a third of its gasoline caused hundreds of service stations to close last week and prices to shoot up.

Yah, a gas pipeline that feeds Phoenix causes everyone's gas to shoot up $.20 a gallon because it did't work for a few days. I believe that.


The back-up-plan
The disruptions came as supplies of oil have been abnormally low. Over the past year, hurricanes on the gulf coast, the national strike in Venezuela and the war in Iraq have contributed to the low production levels, analysts said.

Let's seee: Hurricanes (must be talking about LAST year's hurricanes because I'm not aware of any THIS year that substantially damaged oil refineries). So I guess stuff that happened LAST September and October just NOW causes massive price changes at the pump. Yes that makes sense.

National Strike in Venezuela. Hmm. I wonder what percentage of our foreign oil imports comes from Venezuela on average each month. Low single digits I'm guessing. But more importantly when did this strike start? Was there say, a strike going on when prices were averaging $1.50 a gallon?

Iraq: hasn't Iraq's oil business been under strain for several years now?

In short, I don't see how ANY of this can cause the magnitude of price change we've seen. We're being lied to and the general public is so fuking stupid that they go "oh yah, the oil pipeline in Phoenix; it must feed the entire west coast!" and think no more of it. We're being fed a load of shit because one of the excuses above is BOUND to work on 80% of the American public. These are the same people who get off on WWF Smackdown and P-diddly after all....

The oil whores must be made obsolete lest our problems where oil is concerned, never be solved.


Tangent: Nightline had a knee-slapper session last night on Hyrdogen fuel cells and how they can reduce our dependancy on oil, etc. I love how they spun the who thing as a big friggin joke - the guests were laughing at the technology the whole way through - I wonder which executive from GM stressed to ABC news that it should be a "light hearted" piece. That "we're not really ready yet"....

A piece like that should be as detailed and dead-serious as a debate on the Israelis and Palestinians or SARS. Asshole media.

[david101]

Over here in the UK we pay the equivalent of US$ 5.50 per gallon. The government wants to tax us off the road, and as a result our cars tend to have pretty good mpg - for example my car routinely gets 45 m.p.g

As far as oil reserves are concerned the bottleneck isn't anything to so with refining - it's all about getting the oil out of the ground in the first place. If you just open the tap then you stand to lose a hell of a lot of production and your reservoir will have a higher water cut much earlier - you may even bypass reserves and get water cut off. The key to a sustained oil supply is good reservoir management and that means knowing when to slow production - something that the US didn't find out about until the it was too late (well almost too late anyway). Thats by the by and a lot of you will know that anyway. From discovering oil to first production can take as long as 10-15 years with all the planning/testing etc that needs to go into it. So, sure oil may last another 200, 400, 600 years or whatever, but it will get less abundant in supply and will become more expensive.

[bunge]

Labor Day Weekend.

[Randycat99]

Originally posted by bunge
Labor Day Weekend.

DING, DING, DING, DING!!!! :D

[Randycat99]

I've been thinking about this for a while (wrt teaching those oil industry hoars a lesson). I wish someone could come up with a gas "filler" that could be sold at say $0.50/gal. You could dilute your gas with it to fill your tank. HP performance would be horrendous, but there would be no possibility for engine damage. Essentially, it would be like really "weak" gasoline, power-wise. Chemically, it would be like an inert component that won't give engines trouble to adapt to, won't futz up any equipment, but fills your tank volume-wise.

So instead of buying $25 or $30 of gas to fill your tank, you buy $7, and then top it off with this "filler" gas stuff at a substantial cost reduction. That way you can choose to shoot for full engine performance with pure gas or save some money with the "filler" method and sort of "limp" you car around town.

I know, why not just save gas by enforcing a personal edict to barely breath on the throttle to "limp" around town? Problem is, most people don't have that much control, mpg for a particular car will only improve by so much no matter what you do with the throttle, and in the end, the gasoline companies will eventually get your $25-30 to fill your tank, anyways. So by offering a "filler" alternative, this will shunt potential revenues away from those greedy oil bastards (assuming it is somebody else who is selling the filler component, of course).

Surely, there will be caveats to this strategy that I have not written here. It's just an idea that I think could give the consumer back some power in this terrible relationship.

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by Randycat99
I've been thinking about this for a while (wrt teaching those oil industry hoars a lesson). I wish someone could come up with a gas "filler" that could be sold at say $0.50/gal. You could dilute your gas with it to fill your tank. HP performance would be horrendous, but there would be no possibility for engine damage. Essentially, it would be like really "weak" gasoline, power-wise. Chemically, it would be like an inert component that won't give engines trouble to adapt to, won't futz up any equipment, but fills your tank volume-wise.

The oil companies beat you to it! Although they weren't too worried whether it would cause fuel pump damage. And of course when these things were added, did the price go down, even though there was less gasolline there?

Seems not only is most gas sold with a methanol blend of up to 10%, but nowadays we are being sold gas with a cheap detergent to "help" the consumer keep their fuel injectors clean.

[Skipjack]

Originally posted by Chinney
The big problem is that it requires a large investment that takes years to recoup. I was told that, at current levels of efficiency and with the current price of panels vs. the current market price of electricity, the time it takes is about 20 years for installations on individual houses. That is a long time.

On the other hand, the efficiency of panels is steadily getting better and the price of other sources of electricity is steadily increasing. Consider as well that many other sources of electricity require large initial outlays (nuclear generating station anyone?). Solar energy is rapidly becoming competitive.


I'm not prepared to talk at length about solar power (plus I'll get the usual thread hijack rant), but from what I have seen, although there have been advances in solar cell efficiency, they have not made a great difference in the cost of solar installations. In fact, in the past few years, the costs have actually increased as the interest in solar power has increased. (That is, the increase in volume has not been sufficient to compensate for the supply and demand effect.)

A few years ago, I purchased a solar system for installation on my sister's house in Southern California. My cost was about $30,000, partly because the system is overdesigned and can be more than doubled in size without changing the electronics. During the day, even with many major appliances running, my sister's family sells some power to the utility. However, a great deal of time is spent at home when when system is not supplying power. Their electricity cost is now about 10% of what they had previously been paying. A payback period of about 20 years sounds right. The warranty of most commercial solar cells is 25 years. ( I took an introductory engineering class in which one person claimed that the cells were only good for about 10 to 15 years, but I have no idea where that statement came from.)

The cost for a self-sufficient household system is probably about $15,000 - $20,000 for one which does not include a battery storage system and relies on the excess produced during the day to offset the energy purchased at night.

A good source is www.solarsolar.com. eBay doesn't have very good prices on solar panels, but you might find a good price on a used or refurbished inverter. A more expensive source, but one which has been in business since I've been looking at alternative sources of energy (~25 years) is www.realgoods.com.

In my opinion, photovoltaics will not make a significant contribution unless there is some sort of legislation mandating their use, perhaps for new housing developments. Rebates and incentive plans (up to 50% of the installation cost) has not encouraged widespread use, and now, with the present state of the economy, many of these plans are no longer in existance. It is true that individual companies have seen the advantages of solar for their buildings, (for example, Clint Eastwood has installed solar panels at his golf course near Carmel or Monterey to power the buildings and charge the golf carts) but these exceptions are few.

[Randycat99]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
The oil companies beat you to it! Although they weren't too worried whether it would cause fuel pump damage. And of course when these things were added, did the price go down, even though there was less gasolline there?

Seems not only is most gas sold with a methanol blend of up to 10%, but nowadays we are being sold gas with a cheap detergent to "help" the consumer keep their fuel injectors clean.

No, I'm talking about a "filler" that does absolutely nothing, but be a cheap filler- none of this methanol to bump octane (and does have energy content of its own and thus a comparable cost to the gasoline itself) or detergents (which exact a cost of their own). This would be sold at rock bottom prices by "stations" that are utterly independent of actual gas stations (or maybe it could be obiquitous enough so that you could buy yourself 5-gallon containers of the stuff at your local Walmart?). Hence the traditional gas stations won't be allowed room to pigeonhole cost from one area to another. They'll just sell less gas, and hopefully "feel the pain". I would go so far as to say this filler could be some sort of "water-based" product, formulated to not rust anything, and is completely soluable in gasoline. (Though I guess water itself may actually not be cheap enough? It wouldn't have to be drinkable level water quality, though. So maybe that could modify the price of what you typically buy off the shelf for drinking.)

[Chinney]

Thanks Skipjack, great post. It is good to hear from someone who has had practical experience doing it. And thanks for the references...I really am thinking of doing it myself in two-three years, when I will be replacing my roof.

I do think, though, that solar will make a difference if some big companies go for it in large way. Their peak use of electricity is a real burden on the grid and if these companies had alternative sources (or were even selling to the grid) this burden would not be there. The real question of electricity generation is this peak usage, as the capicity of the system has to be geared to the peak, even if most of the rest of the time the full capacity is not used. In essence, there are entire generating stations that would not be necessary except to service peak demand (although, in pracice, none of them actually are shut-off after peak periods).

I agree, however, that individual households are not likely to adopt solar in large numbers anytime soon. I do hope that increases in efficiency of the solar cells will make a difference to make it palatable even to households. The price of individual cells may not go down, but if the cells become more efficient, the 'effective' price will go down. Prototype cells, I have read, are now getting double the efficiency of the cells that are currently on the market.

[Outsider]

Trash can become a huge problem in Urban America. What about the processing of waste in buildings to extract methane and use that to power a large fuel cell to augment the buildings energy requirements. Coupled with solar panels they may reduce energy requirement dramatically. I wonder how much methane can be produced from the daily waste of a 200 apartment building and how much electricity it can produce through fuel cell(s)?

[Skipjack]

Originally posted by Chinney
I really am thinking of doing it myself in two-three years, when I will be replacing my roof.

Hopefully, you will be as lucky as I was. At the time the system was installed, it was the last year of the California rebate, which reimbursed me for 35-40% of my cost.

The utilities have, in the past, been supportive. They continue to buy power, which they are not obligated to do. Some have had their own rebate programs, and some cities and counties used to have their own programs. Perhaps when the economy recovers, California will continue funding the rebate program. (I haven't checked lately, but the last program was approved but not funded.)

As attractive as photovoltaics sound, I have heard that a just as effective and lower cost solar utilization is for hot water. If I had my own home, that is the first thing I would install. I have not looked into that as extensively as photovoltaics and the only souce I can recommend for information is the Real Goods site, but as I said, they are probably one of the more expensive suppliers.

[Scott]

The whole idea of government rebates for solar can't work on a wide basis. Where do you all think the government gets the money from? And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.

You mean like farming? Or should we stop subsidizing gas with wars in the Middle East?

[Skipjack]

Originally posted by Scott
The whole idea of government rebates for solar can't work on a wide basis. Where do you all think the government gets the money from? And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.

I agree for the most part.

I believe that the intention behind the rebates (which much more than a tax rebate: part was a payback and on top of that a state tax deduction for the cost of the system) was to encourage the use of solar to the point that the prices would come down to a point where government incentives were no longer necessary. From what I have seen, this has been a failure because few people are willing to put up the initial investment.

Thinking long term, the solar installations would pay for themselves in about 20 years. The government incentives cut that down to the 10 to 20 year range.

I believe that a second intention was to invest in the infrastructure. Certainly having a distributed power generation system would help to lessen demands during the peak daylight hours. Encouraging people to install solar would reduce the necessity to build new plants, with all the permits, studies, legal fees, and environmental impact reports involved. If some of the administrative costs were dedicated to incentives, there might be a net savings. This solution is environmentally palatable and requires no additional land.

On the other hand, some people took this to the extreme and encourage independence from the grid. This defeats the second reason I mentioned. Apparently this was so serious that there was legislation proposed to charge people who divorced themselves from the grid for reimbursement for the infrastructure which had been invested (i.e., running power lines). As might be expected, this brought protests from people who did not understand why the government or utility would want to charge for gaining independence from the grid. (This charge would not apply to houses initially build as independent from the grid.)

Apparently, just as California's failed effort to encourage completely electric (not hybrid) cars, the technology is just not far advanced enough to make photovoltaics feasible for widespread use.

(Note: in any case, even with widespread use, photovoltaics would be able to supply less than 20% of the total electrical demand.)

[Scott]

Originally posted by bunge
You mean like farming? Or should we stop subsidizing gas with wars in the Middle East?

Difference is that farming can. Subsidizing farming increases the price in two ways. 1) Supply is reduced therefor prices go up. 2) Your tax bill is higher to pay the subsidy.

Once again the old leftist lie that the war was about oil.

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by Randycat99
No, I'm talking about a "filler" that does absolutely nothing, but be a cheap filler- none of this methanol to bump octane (and does have energy content of its own and thus a comparable cost to the gasoline itself) or detergents (which exact a cost of their own). This would be sold at rock bottom prices by "stations" that are utterly independent of actual gas stations (or maybe it could be obiquitous enough so that you could buy yourself 5-gallon containers of the stuff at your local Walmart?). Hence the traditional gas stations won't be allowed room to pigeonhole cost from one area to another. They'll just sell less gas, and hopefully "feel the pain". I would go so far as to say this filler could be some sort of "water-based" product, formulated to not rust anything, and is completely soluable in gasoline. (Though I guess water itself may actually not be cheap enough? It wouldn't have to be drinkable level water quality, though. So maybe that could modify the price of what you typically buy off the shelf for drinking.)

Unfortunately, the design of the internal combustion engine is rather inefficient in that not all the energy that exists in gasoline is used, so an inert fillers would really affect the power output and the way a car drives. Ever had a a batch of bad gas after a fill-up? Which may not be a bad idea. How many times do you see people jack-rabbit from a stop light?

All in all, the best solution to have them sell less gasoline with solutions that already exist. A natural gas dual fuel conversion is proven technology which doesn't compromise anything in the potential conversion market 99% of the cars running out there on gasoline . They even make applicances that allow you to fill your tank at home (if you have NG heating your house) overnight at low pressure.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by Scott
The whole idea of government rebates for solar can't work on a wide basis. Where do you all think the government gets the money from? And if solar can't pay for itself without tax rebates then that means it can't pay for itself.

The government subsidizes energy in all sorts of ways, incluiding enormous subsidies for oil, gas, and nuclear - at least in Canada. Why should it not invest in something 'green' instead, or at least in addition.

In any case, although the solar electric technology still needs to be advanced, some big companies are investing in it now to supplement their own economic needs. And they are investing in it because it is starting to make economic sense.

I agree that solar will never supply all of our energy needs, but it will supply enough to make a big difference, especially when combined with other new sources.

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by Chinney
The government subsidizes energy in all sorts of ways, incluiding enormous subsidies for oil, gas, and nuclear - at least in Canada. Why should it not invest in something 'green' instead, or at least in addition.


Nice idea, but the general population is usually set in their ways when it comes to supply. It's kind of like the buy-Microsoft mindset, although this is changing, and we can only hope the consumer will go out and investigate alternatives. There are so many practical alternatives, but most people just don't have the desire to do so.

On a brief tangent, how's this for a govt subsidy? Halogen bulbs can use up to two-thirds less electricity that standard incandescent bulbs and provide the same amount of light. What if a govt decided to somehow make it "free" for you to replace the bulbs in your home or office. A study was done for the Province of Ontario (not by the govt, but some enviro group) that estimated over 500 megawatts would be saved in a year if a vast majority participated in such a scheme. I read about this a month or so before the blackout.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
Difference is that farming can. Subsidizing farming increases the price in two ways. 1) Supply is reduced therefor prices go up. 2) Your tax bill is higher to pay the subsidy.

This sounds to me like farming can't pay for itself. If not can't, doesn't.

Originally posted by Scott
Once again the old leftist lie that the war was about oil.

In this case it doesn't have to be the sole or even main reason we went in, just one of several motivating factors. And I believe even you would have to be honest enough to admit that.

So, the war did subsidize oil to an extent.

[Longhorn]

This sounds to me like farming can't pay for itself. If not can't, doesn't.


You want to be the one to suggest that we charge more for food? I'm sure all the poor people will really appreciate that.

:rolleyes:

Food is subsidized because it is a base requirement to live, and for national security reasons.

Neither apply to solar power per se, but you could try to make a run with the security argument.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Longhorn
Food is subsidized because it is a base requirement to live, and for national security reasons.

Neither apply to solar power per se, but you could try to make a run with the security argument.

I disagree. Energy is essentially a base requirement to live in this country. Homes need heat in winter. Trucks need fuel to bring you the food. Farmers need energy to produce enough food for the rest of us. On and on and on....

First, I'm not arguing we raise the price of food. I'm arguing we lower the costs* of energy through subsidies like we lower the cost of food.

*costs refers to price and efficiency of energy.

[Longhorn]

but what you're talking about would be like subsidizing growing oranges in Minnesota.

sure, you'd get food from it, but it would be a much more expensive way to get the same amount of food than say growing in Florida.

same with solar vs. oil energy. one is just much cheaper for the exact same product.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Longhorn
same with solar vs. oil energy. one is just much cheaper for the exact same product.

Oil energy is not the same as solar energy. That's the point.

It's more like comparing vegetables to twinkies. Twinkies are cheap and can get you through the day. Vegetables are expensive but a hell of a lot better for you.

If you really break down all of the costs of oil. Cleanup of the air pollution, increased health care costs, who knows what else costs, oil isn't cheap.

[Longhorn]

If you really break down all of the costs of oil. Cleanup of the air pollution, increased health care costs, who knows what else costs, oil isn't cheap.


THAT would actually be an argument worth seeing. The problem is that too many people go about trying to promote "Green" energy the wrong way. Yah, it will save the Earth, make you happy etc. What you really need though is to show how green energy is cheaper per KW/h than oil/coal/nuclear energy.

Now, top that argument off with some good old fashioned security based argument and then the solar/wind etc. energy idea would get more traction.

Show people that something will save them money, or make them more money and your job is done. They'll do the rest of the work themselves. As things stand now though, there's really not a lot of monetary gain to going with green energy.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Longhorn
Show people that something will save them money, or make them more money and your job is done. They'll do the rest of the work themselves. As things stand now though, there's really not a lot of monetary gain to going with green energy.

Tax the fsck out of oil to help pay for the ancillary costs and you'll see a dramatic rise in the benefits of green energy. I shouldn't have to pay with cancer because an individual drives an SUV to work everyday.

[Longhorn]

Tax the fsck out of oil to help pay for the ancillary costs and you'll see a dramatic rise in the benefits of green energy. I shouldn't have to pay with cancer because an individual drives an SUV to work everyday.

But as soon as you do this the cost of manufacturing will sky rocket, and lots of people will lose their jobs. Unless you could directly tie the health costs etc. to oil, you have a hard time proving that oil is more expensive than green energy.

Raising the cost of oil would just kill the economy though, so it's not really a viable option.

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by Longhorn
the cost of manufacturing will sky rocket, and lots of people will lose their jobs.

Isn't everything already made in the Far East or Mexico?

Seriously, how much manfacturing uses oil and gasoline?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Longhorn
Raising the cost of oil would just kill the economy though, so it's not really a viable option.

So now we can see real motivations that are contradictory to improving the energy sources for this country. It's not healthy.

Start increasing taxes on oil for one area at a time. First for lung cancer. Then something else like I don't know what else it causes. Eventually the slow increase will turn heads.

[Longhorn]

Or you could just wait for the price of gas to slowly rise (as it is now) and for other companies to start looking into other fuel sources (as they are now).

In 5 years we'll have other fuel sources w/o the need for taxes that just suck money out of your pocket and feed it to someone else.

Taxes are inherently ineffecient, best avoided unless absolutely necessary.

The fact is that for green energy to have a chance it needs to be able to stand on its own, without heavy subsidies. When it becomes a viable business choice, it will be adopted. In this case I think we just need to be a bit more patient. The Ford Escape is ocming out with a hybrid engine, and will get 40 MPG. So how evil are SUV's then?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Longhorn
Taxes are inherently ineffecient, best avoided unless absolutely necessary.

Oil is subsidized in so many ways though, so our taxes that are subsidizing oil should just be transferred to a different source. How efficient is nuclear power? How much is Yucca Mountain going to cost?

How evil? That 40 MPG would translate to 80 for a car. SUVs destroy roads because they weigh so much, but we all have to subsidize their extra costs. It's too bad.

[Randycat99]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Unfortunately, the design of the internal combustion engine is rather inefficient in that not all the energy that exists in gasoline is used, so an inert fillers would really affect the power output and the way a car drives.

I already noted that there would be an impact on engine performance. Of course, you can't get something for nothing. Despite the inefficiency argument, there are a lot of cars on the road where the driver doesn't need/choose to use the full available power in their engine, anyway. My idea offers an additional degree of freedom where you can further trade off performance in exchange for fuel cost. This could be a boon to those with larger engines that tend to have a fuel "appetite". Those with small, not so powerful engines wouldn't need to bother since they are using so very little fuel in the first place.

Ever had a a batch of bad gas after a fill-up?

It entirely depends on how the octane rating was affected. A bad batch of gas may cause problems due to low octane conditions. My idea would ideally not affect octane at all, maybe possibly increase it (since it addresses a "filler material", not just some other chemical that burns).

Which may not be a bad idea. How many times do you see people jack-rabbit from a stop light?

They can choose to either run with "full gas" or gas+filler. It is entirely dependent on what their priorities are.

All in all, the best solution to have them sell less gasoline with solutions that already exist. A natural gas dual fuel conversion is proven technology which doesn't compromise anything in the potential conversion market 99% of the cars running out there on gasoline . They even make applicances that allow you to fill your tank at home (if you have NG heating your house) overnight at low pressure.

The big problem there is that it requires retrofitting existing vehicles and adding extra equipment to new vehicles. "Extra equipment" strikes me as potentially more complicated than just pumping different "stuff" into your gas tank. Though, I do agree that the time for dual fuel vehicles is probably coming to bear. However, it could bite you again in the same way, in that "they" will just figure out a way to make NG prices go up. Nothing worse than going though hell with one fuel source, than ending up being "played" between 2 fuel sources which want to bleed you equally well.

[Skipjack]

Originally posted by Longhorn
The problem is that too many people go about trying to promote "Green" energy the wrong way. Yah, it will save the Earth, make you happy etc. What you really need though is to show how green energy is cheaper per KW/h than oil/coal/nuclear energy.

It is not so black and white. Obviously, I'm not against renewable energy sources since I've sponsored a home solar installation.

Hydroelectric is a significant source (perhaps 10%), but it is not likely that this capacity will be expanded, especially with all the call by (so-called) environmentalists to remove dams.

Wind is not as significant since there are limited areas where windmills can be efficient. California has a few of these "windmill farms". Windmills occupy cleared land and some environmentalists cite their danger to migrating birds.

It costs money to manufacture photovoltaic equipment; at present, more than is produced by solar cells and the supporting electronic equipment. As with most electronic equipment, there are hazardous wastes (solders, solvents to wash the PC boards, and I'm sure eventually someone will complain about the gallium and arsenic). While I personally have not seen equipment that is likely to fail within 20 years, some people might know better since I have heard of the subject. What are the costs of disposal and/or recycling? At present, that is not a concern since the volume is so small (just as a permanent solution for nuclear waste has apparently not been a priority). Also, if for some reason, we don't implement a distributed system (using available roof space), solar farms would take up large open spaces. (No, covering the deserts would not be a good idea.)

My opinion has changed little in 25 years. In order to maintain a technological society, fission reactors are a necessary evil until we can develop fusion reactors.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Skipjack
It is not so black and white. Obviously, I'm not against renewable energy sources since I've sponsored a home solar installation.

Hemp seed oil.

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by bunge
When the cost of a barrel of oil decreases, it takes three months for a watered down decrease in the price of gas to reach the pump. When something not necessarily related to oil goes wrong in the world, prices at the pump go up immediately.

It's call price gouging.

Also notice it seems to happen near holidays in the USA: Memorial Day, Labor Day, etc. -- travel holidays in particular.

[Longhorn]

Also notice it seems to happen near holidays in the USA: Memorial Day, Labor Day, etc. -- travel holidays in particular.

Almost as if in some strange supply and demand curve.

;)

[bunge]

Originally posted by Longhorn
Almost as if in some strange supply and demand curve.

;)

That's not fair. If supply is down and demand is up then costs should go up. In the case of oil, it's arbitrary. That's not healthy for the economy. Competition is healthy, and that's something we don't have.

[tonton]

Originally posted by BR
I'm sure it's somehow the Democrats' fault.

[stereotypical Rush loving reality denial mode] Don... Don't you know these things are Cyclical!!!!? You Freaking commie leftist liberal gay-loving, God hating morons!!! It's Clinton's fault!!! AAARGH! (Head explodes). [/stereotypical Rush loving reality denial mode]

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by Randycat99
The big problem there is that it requires retrofitting existing vehicles and adding extra equipment to new vehicles. "Extra equipment" strikes me as potentially more complicated than just pumping different "stuff" into your gas tank. Though, I do agree that the time for dual fuel vehicles is probably coming to bear. However, it could bite you again in the same way, in that "they" will just figure out a way to make NG prices go up. Nothing worse than going though hell with one fuel source, than ending up being "played" between 2 fuel sources which want to bleed you equally well.

Points taken on everything else...

However, the extra equipment is relatively simple to install. I remember when pollution controls came out, the older mechanics complained about how inefficient they were for the engines and complicated repairs, but they and the car buying public did adapt, and in some cases (the EGR valve) they actually improve efficiency when properly engineered.

By the way, new vehicles are being built from the factory with this option. Many taxis have those big American four-door cars with such options.

The reason I am a big proponent of NG is that I have had two cars use this, they worked great, had 90% less emissions than gasoline, and cost 50% less to drive. Along with creating an environment in the engine that has less punishment, and therefore less need for maintenance.

As I said before, even with a govt offering a free conversion, people will be apprehensive about installing/oredering something like this, and as you allude, most people would have a fear-uncertainty-doubt as compared to just putting in something in their gas tank. It's a lot like the buy-Microsoft mentality that most computer users have, just applied to cars.

But do remember this about NG. It's not something that we could become dependent on like refined gasoline, or something that will run out. NG is methane, something that is created in garbage dumps due to decomposing matter, among other places. It is a very renewable resource. And it is something that can be implemented immediately in 99% of the gasoline vehicles out there.

Which sort of reminds me... back when Ford was cranking out their cars in the '20s, they created a dual-fuel option to allow the engine to run on 100% alcohol that a farmer could distill, but they were forced to remove this option by the govt and oil companies (or so the story goes) because of issues with brewing your own hooch. And that is how we became dependent on gasoline.

[bunge]

I believe that this (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20030829%2F103040488.htm&sc=rontz) is a good sign that will unfortunately amount to nothing.

JimDreamworx, could you post some links to information about Canada's NG car conversion program? Thanks.

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by bunge

JimDreamworx, could you post some links to information about Canada's NG car conversion program? Thanks.

http://www.ngvcanada.org/ should take you to the websites of many places that offer it.

I wish I could find the company that did it for me, but I can't find any links. When I was doing this in Canada, in Ontario, the company was called Consumers Gas, but it seems they have changed their name or been bought out or something. Like I said, it was for my two previous cars...

Also, back then, there was no Internet as pervasive as it is today, and the NG company used to attend car shows and have big displays at gas stations that also sold NG, so that's how I found out about

EDIT:
Looks like the feds up there have expanded this program
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/greening/natural_gas.cfm?PrintView=N&Text=N

And it seems it's called Enbridge Consumers Gas in Ontario.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Skipjack
Wind is not as significant since there are limited areas where windmills can be efficient. California has a few of these "windmill farms". Windmills occupy cleared land and some environmentalists cite their danger to migrating birds.

Wind could make up for a huge amount of your energy needs.

Denmark has a ppl/sq. km. of 125 (excluding our colonies). US 31,5. The average citizent use as much energy as the US citizent.

Today about 13% of our energy comes from wind and it is estimated that 50% will come from wind in 2030. So unless your land area is four times less optimal for wind production than ours you could do the same.

Wind turbines don´t have to be placed on land. Actually it looks like turbines are more efficient if placed out on the ocean. We just started placing a lot of those recently. Actually one of them (with 15-20 of the newest 2.2 MW turbines) is placed in the harbur of Copenhagen.

So wind is a very viable energy source either combined with other forms of energy production or new storage systems.

[bunge]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
http://www.ngvcanada.org/ should take you to the websites of many places that offer it.

Thanks.

Unfortunately this wouldn't necessarily work in the States. A few decades ago, campers were sold with dual fuel tanks for gas and propane. Like natural gas, the propane was cleaner and cheaper. But, as soon as gas stations realized that campers were using the propane to fuel the engines the prices quadrupled so they were the same as gas. I imagine the same thing would happen here.

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by bunge
Thanks.

Unfortunately this wouldn't necessarily work in the States. A few decades ago, campers were sold with dual fuel tanks for gas and propane. Like natural gas, the propane was cleaner and cheaper. But, as soon as gas stations realized that campers were using the propane to fuel the engines the prices quadrupled so they were the same as gas. I imagine the same thing would happen here.

I've heard that about propane. But the one thing that NG has going for it is that it can be manufactured from garbage and such. And the nature of its regulation as per home heating may help any wild increases in price (but who am I kidding?).

If it won't work, it would probably be for the same reason Ford was not allowed to make cars that ran an alcohol for the farmers. Pressure from the oil companies. But I'd like to believe nowadays that once an idea gets out there, there will be some other institution that will allow it to thrive. Even then, govt will probably just tax it if too may people use it.

[bunge]

Originally posted by JimDreamworx
I've heard that about propane. But the one thing that NG has going for it is that it can be manufactured from garbage and such. And the nature of its regulation as per home heating may help any wild increases in price (but who am I kidding?).

If it won't work, it would probably be for the same reason Ford was not allowed to make cars that ran an alcohol for the farmers. Pressure from the oil companies. But I'd like to believe nowadays that once an idea gets out there, there will be some other institution that will allow it to thrive. Even then, govt will probably just tax it if too may people use it.

I definitely agree that NG is better. I was just making an analogy. And I think the only ways to create an NG friendly system would be either a distribution system not linked to gas stations or heavy, heavy, heavy subsidies.

[torifile]

Maybe I missed it somewhere in this thread, but did anyone explain why on earth a blackout that lasted 12 hours could cause a nearly 10% increase in gas prices? I wish some politician would get some balls and follow through on this "inquiry."

[JimDreamworx]

Originally posted by torifile
...why on earth a blackout that lasted 12 hours could cause a nearly 10% increase in gas prices? I wish some politician would get some balls and follow through on this "inquiry."

In theory, the refineries in the east coast operate on electricty, they got shut down, it took a while for them to restart before they could make more gasoline, and during all this all the gas stations (once the power had been restored to their pumps) ran out of gas. So I guess you could call it supply and demand.

Although from what I've seen, the prices are still pretty high, as they were before the war in Iraq.

With any luck, this will become quite an election issue. But keep in mind, New York has been Democratic for a while, and the west probably enjoyed seeing the Eastern Establishment get thrown in the dark, so follow through with your own conspiracy...

[daabido]

Originally posted by Aquafire
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SDW2001
Have you heard about this in the US? True, we pay less than anyone in the world...
I can't say less than the arab states that have abundant gas ( petrol )
But here in Australia we pay an average of $1.00 per litre ( that's a bit over two pints ).

Converted into US currency that means we're paying about 35 cents per pint..

In US currency, that's $2.80 per US Gallon

Not in all parts of Australia. Here in fair Queensland, prices are lower because the State Government hands back some of the Federal excise so that prices are lower. They are currently oscillating between 80 and 90 cents per litre.

It's all to do with taxes. What really peeves me is the constant up and down of prices, with no correlation with the price of oil at all. The oil companies dress it up as competition. Yeah, right.