Gas Prices.

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 100
    longhornlonghorn Posts: 147member
    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?
  • Reply 82 of 100
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 83 of 100
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    Quote:

    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.



    Quote:

    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).



    Quote:

    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.



    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 84 of 100
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 85 of 100
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 86 of 100
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 87 of 100
    Quote:

    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.



  • Reply 88 of 100
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 89 of 100
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 90 of 100
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    I believe that this 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.
  • Reply 91 of 100
    Quote:

    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/natu...tView=N&Text=N



    And it seems it's called Enbridge Consumers Gas in Ontario.
  • Reply 92 of 100
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 93 of 100
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 94 of 100
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 95 of 100
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    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.
  • Reply 96 of 100
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    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."
  • Reply 97 of 100
    Quote:

    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...
  • Reply 98 of 100
    [QUOTE]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.
Sign In or Register to comment.