I drove by a Shell that was $2.559 while buying pet supplies. East of the train tracks...in the barrio! ...
Anyway, I should make a pass by the closest gas station to the Burlingame Apple Store and see what the price/gallon is there. I'm a little scared to actually.
I saw a chart in the newspaper over the weekend. As expensive as gasoline appears to be right now, it is actually cheaper than it was ? adjusted for inflation ? for much of the late ?70s and early ?80s. The fact of the matter is that we have just gone through a period of exceptionally low gasoline prices. It was lower in much of the late ?90s than it was even in the ?50s.
It was this relatively low price ? again, adjusted for inflation ? that made people largely ignore mileage considerations when purchasing vehicles for the last 10-15 years. I remember the 70s and 80s when mileage claims were a prominent part of just about every automobile advertisement. Over the last decade, however, automobile manufacturers largely ignored mileage as a selling point.
Despite much-improved vehicle technology that would have allowed the overall North American vehicle fleet to be much more efficient (at given levels of horsepower and vehicle weight), overall efficiency has not improved or has even declined in recent years: the technology has instead been used to greatly increase average horsepower and to accommodate increases in average vehicle weight.
I agree with everything you said. It is funny how people who do most of the complaining drive vehicles that get poor gas mileage. Should I feel sorry for these folks? I don't think so...
It is interesting that people freely and without complaint pay more for a gallon of milk, a bottle of water and a latte at Starbucks. But if gasoline gets pricey everybody gets in an uproar. Let's get a little perspective here. And let's not make this some kind of political issue either. There is plenty of blame to go around. The bottom line is that we are still way to dependent on foreign oil because environmentalists refuse to allow drilling in areas that will yield the greatest rewards. Also, Americans still buy too many vehicles that are not fuel efficient enough and who are we supposed to blame for that?
The last time I bought gas it was just under $2.00/gallon.
I drove by about 20 stations today and all were *well* above $2.00/gallon. Thank God I'm done with classes for the semester. Work starts June 1st, though, and it's a good thing I'm planning to carpool. \
be glad your car doesnt run on Evian bottled water: lest you pay $21.19 per gallon or Revlon Nail Enamel at a whopping $983.04 per gallon, here is a full list just for fun
We have it very easy compared to the europeans and many others. There is a very interesting article in the June issue of National Geographic...the cover reads "The End of Cheap Oil". I'm halfway through it, but this caught my attention:
Quote:
"While oil demand is up everywhere, the U.S remains the king of consumers,slurping up a quarter of the world's oil-about three gallons a person every day-even though it has just 5% of the population."
There is also a picture of all the stuff a family from Ohio owns,that is made from oil-based polymers. Blew my mind.
Surely at some point(one can only hope),as individuals, we'll have to take responsibility and realize that we need to make some changes in our lifestyles for the benefit of the planet and of the future generations. If only to have enough oil for all the cool stuff made from it! JK. I feel like hugging a tree now. \
Just kidding...I have no clue what gas costs. Never got suckered into the whole car thing.
Bus is still a buck for now. Feet are free. I could divide the price of my boots over the course of their lifetime.
1 pair of Docs: $115 / 365
= 0.31 per day.
Hm...might have enough left over for a coffee.
Of course all my goods prices go up as a result of higher gas, so that's no fun.
</ trollish glee of not having to buy gas>
Yea, too bad the clientel on the busses around here....well the term "irregular batheing habbits" comes to mind, and as for walking, well you try walking down a 4-lane state highway on the sholder and see what kind of looks you get...God, thank you for the car...
Yea, too bad the clientel on the busses around here....well the term "irregular batheing habbits" comes to mind, and as for walking, well you try walking down a 4-lane state highway on the sholder and see what kind of looks you get...God, thank you for the car...
That, alas, is America's particular dilemma, it being strangled by it's own highway system. We have entire communities (and parts within communities) that are inaccessible by anything other than cars. I certainly don't begrudge 99% of people who find themselves stuck needing a car.
Hybrids are a good start and they are getting more popular, albeit a half step (which is the best anyone can ask for...this is addiction after all. I'm not an advocate of cold-turkey treatments in most situations).
But as for gas-free* alternatives, I do not think hydrogen is feasible on a mass scale, thanks to terrorism. The concussion from a hydrogen tank exploding is vastly more destructive relative to a gas tank exploding. I don't like having buses be hydrogen powered, let alone all cars. It's a no-brainer to shoot a bullet into a hydrogen tank on a packed bus. We don't need this. Do we really want to go that route? And do we want to guarantee all car accidents are explosive (more so than gasoline) and deadly? This isn't FUD to scare us away from using hydrogen, I just want us to think about it before committing to it blindly.
I just pray for better battery technology or some yet-imagined technology.
Anyway I guess I'm off topic. We can continue in another thread if anyone wants. </ my offtopicness>
-----
* "gasoline"-free. I know hydrogen is a gas. Pedant.....
That, alas, is America's particular dilemma, it being strangled by it's own highway system. We have entire communities (and parts within communities) that are inaccessible by anything other than cars. I certainly don't begrudge 99% of people who find themselves stuck needing a car.
Hybrids are a good start and they are getting more popular, albeit a half step (which is the best anyone can ask for...this is addiction after all. I'm not an advocate of cold-turkey treatments in most situations).
But as for gas-free* alternatives, I do not think hydrogen is feasible on a mass scale, thanks to terrorism. The concussion from a hydrogen tank exploding is vastly more destructive relative to a gas tank exploding. I don't like having buses be hydrogen powered, let alone all cars. It's a no-brainer to shoot a bullet into a hydrogen tank on a packed bus. We don't need this. Do we really want to go that route? And do we want to guarantee all car accidents are explosive (more so than gasoline) and deadly? This isn't FUD to scare us away from using hydrogen, I just want us to think about it before committing to it blindly.
Unfortunately, it *IS* FUD because it's based in ignorance.
1) Not a *SINGLE* H2 based technology uses H2 gas. That's silly. Metal hydrides, *inert* metal hydrides are the most common hydrogen storage medium.
2) H2's image was destroyed by the Hindenberg - guess what, that wasn't an H2 fire. The damned thing was painted with a thick goo to keep the H2 from seeping through the fabric. We use that goo today - it's called *rocket fuel*. That's what caused the thick black smoke. The H2 escaped out the top in a bright *poof* when the spine broke. (H2 goes up, recall...)
Hydrogen fuel cells are extremely safe - at *least* as safe as gasoline storage.
The beauty in H2 based systems is that it is extremely easy to get from H2 -> electricity and from electricity -> H2. (With a slight loss on each end.) This means that no H2 is ever transported - we use the existing electrical grid for transmission, and H2 for storage. Best of both worlds. And if the H2 is created *almost* on demand, then no target for terrorism either. Unlike, say, the Alaskan Pipeline... or gas refineries... or tanker trucks... or gas stations...
Around $1.85 to $1.90 here in Houston for regular.
Shame Clinton, with Kerry support, voted against drilling in the ANWR region of Alaska. Could be pumping a million barrels a day from there and this would not be happening right now.
And Kerry has the balls to put the blame on someone else.
Its the Liberals who are the greenpeace lovers and do not want to drill anywhere.
Where in the hell is the oil going to come from then Mr. Kerry?
sorry... but there is no evidence that there was that much oil under the arctic range... why destroy a pristine environment to get access to doubtful oil supplies???
sorry... but there is no evidence that there was that much oil under the arctic range... why destroy a pristine environment to get access to doubtful oil supplies???
Do you have any proof it would "destroy" the artic range or are you just reciting talking points?
Do you have any proof it would "destroy" the artic range or are you just reciting talking points?
Moreno Valley, CA.
$2.32
the point is Nick that there is no evidence of vast deposits of oil in the arctic range... but yes, there would be at least local devastation of the environment and we all know that these rigs are rarely if ever self contained... we really don't know much about arctic tundra to say what the effect would be in the short/long run... basically there are too many doubts to make this sort of investment worth it... we are better situated if we devoted our resources to alternative fuels instead of a quick fix to find a new source...
Sound well grounded logic if i do say so myself... I read krugman's very fair analysis of the arctic debate last year and i tended to agree with most of what he said...
Comments
Anyway, I should make a pass by the closest gas station to the Burlingame Apple Store and see what the price/gallon is there. I'm a little scared to actually.
Originally posted by Chinney
I saw a chart in the newspaper over the weekend. As expensive as gasoline appears to be right now, it is actually cheaper than it was ? adjusted for inflation ? for much of the late ?70s and early ?80s. The fact of the matter is that we have just gone through a period of exceptionally low gasoline prices. It was lower in much of the late ?90s than it was even in the ?50s.
It was this relatively low price ? again, adjusted for inflation ? that made people largely ignore mileage considerations when purchasing vehicles for the last 10-15 years. I remember the 70s and 80s when mileage claims were a prominent part of just about every automobile advertisement. Over the last decade, however, automobile manufacturers largely ignored mileage as a selling point.
Despite much-improved vehicle technology that would have allowed the overall North American vehicle fleet to be much more efficient (at given levels of horsepower and vehicle weight), overall efficiency has not improved or has even declined in recent years: the technology has instead been used to greatly increase average horsepower and to accommodate increases in average vehicle weight.
I agree with everything you said. It is funny how people who do most of the complaining drive vehicles that get poor gas mileage. Should I feel sorry for these folks? I don't think so...
It is interesting that people freely and without complaint pay more for a gallon of milk, a bottle of water and a latte at Starbucks. But if gasoline gets pricey everybody gets in an uproar. Let's get a little perspective here. And let's not make this some kind of political issue either. There is plenty of blame to go around. The bottom line is that we are still way to dependent on foreign oil because environmentalists refuse to allow drilling in areas that will yield the greatest rewards. Also, Americans still buy too many vehicles that are not fuel efficient enough and who are we supposed to blame for that?
I drove by about 20 stations today and all were *well* above $2.00/gallon. Thank God I'm done with classes for the semester. Work starts June 1st, though, and it's a good thing I'm planning to carpool.
http://www.awwa.org/Advocacy/learn/i...ePerGallon.cfm
Just kidding...I have no clue what gas costs.
Bus is still a buck for now. Feet are free. I could divide the price of my boots over the course of their lifetime.
1 pair of Docs: $115 / 365
= 0.31 per day.
Hm...might have enough left over for a coffee.
Of course all my goods prices go up as a result of higher gas, so that's no fun.
</ trollish glee of not having to buy gas>
"While oil demand is up everywhere, the U.S remains the king of consumers,slurping up a quarter of the world's oil-about three gallons a person every day-even though it has just 5% of the population."
There is also a picture of all the stuff a family from Ohio owns,that is made from oil-based polymers. Blew my mind.
Surely at some point(one can only hope),as individuals, we'll have to take responsibility and realize that we need to make some changes in our lifestyles for the benefit of the planet and of the future generations. If only to have enough oil for all the cool stuff made from it! JK. I feel like hugging a tree now.
Originally posted by johnq
Just kidding...I have no clue what gas costs.
Bus is still a buck for now. Feet are free. I could divide the price of my boots over the course of their lifetime.
1 pair of Docs: $115 / 365
= 0.31 per day.
Hm...might have enough left over for a coffee.
Of course all my goods prices go up as a result of higher gas, so that's no fun.
</ trollish glee of not having to buy gas>
Yea, too bad the clientel on the busses around here....well the term "irregular batheing habbits" comes to mind, and as for walking, well you try walking down a 4-lane state highway on the sholder and see what kind of looks you get...God, thank you for the car...
Sorry, another "gas" joke.
$2.06/gallon-Premium
Originally posted by a_greer
Yea, too bad the clientel on the busses around here....well the term "irregular batheing habbits" comes to mind, and as for walking, well you try walking down a 4-lane state highway on the sholder and see what kind of looks you get...God, thank you for the car...
That, alas, is America's particular dilemma, it being strangled by it's own highway system. We have entire communities (and parts within communities) that are inaccessible by anything other than cars. I certainly don't begrudge 99% of people who find themselves stuck needing a car.
Hybrids are a good start and they are getting more popular, albeit a half step (which is the best anyone can ask for...this is addiction after all. I'm not an advocate of cold-turkey treatments in most situations).
But as for gas-free* alternatives, I do not think hydrogen is feasible on a mass scale, thanks to terrorism. The concussion from a hydrogen tank exploding is vastly more destructive relative to a gas tank exploding. I don't like having buses be hydrogen powered, let alone all cars. It's a no-brainer to shoot a bullet into a hydrogen tank on a packed bus. We don't need this. Do we really want to go that route? And do we want to guarantee all car accidents are explosive (more so than gasoline) and deadly? This isn't FUD to scare us away from using hydrogen, I just want us to think about it before committing to it blindly.
I just pray for better battery technology or some yet-imagined technology.
Anyway I guess I'm off topic. We can continue in another thread if anyone wants. </ my offtopicness>
-----
* "gasoline"-free. I know hydrogen is a gas. Pedant.....
Undoubtedly will get worse over the summer.
Originally posted by johnq
That, alas, is America's particular dilemma, it being strangled by it's own highway system. We have entire communities (and parts within communities) that are inaccessible by anything other than cars. I certainly don't begrudge 99% of people who find themselves stuck needing a car.
Hybrids are a good start and they are getting more popular, albeit a half step (which is the best anyone can ask for...this is addiction after all. I'm not an advocate of cold-turkey treatments in most situations).
But as for gas-free* alternatives, I do not think hydrogen is feasible on a mass scale, thanks to terrorism. The concussion from a hydrogen tank exploding is vastly more destructive relative to a gas tank exploding. I don't like having buses be hydrogen powered, let alone all cars. It's a no-brainer to shoot a bullet into a hydrogen tank on a packed bus. We don't need this. Do we really want to go that route? And do we want to guarantee all car accidents are explosive (more so than gasoline) and deadly? This isn't FUD to scare us away from using hydrogen, I just want us to think about it before committing to it blindly.
Unfortunately, it *IS* FUD because it's based in ignorance.
1) Not a *SINGLE* H2 based technology uses H2 gas. That's silly. Metal hydrides, *inert* metal hydrides are the most common hydrogen storage medium.
2) H2's image was destroyed by the Hindenberg - guess what, that wasn't an H2 fire. The damned thing was painted with a thick goo to keep the H2 from seeping through the fabric. We use that goo today - it's called *rocket fuel*. That's what caused the thick black smoke. The H2 escaped out the top in a bright *poof* when the spine broke. (H2 goes up, recall...)
Hydrogen fuel cells are extremely safe - at *least* as safe as gasoline storage.
The beauty in H2 based systems is that it is extremely easy to get from H2 -> electricity and from electricity -> H2. (With a slight loss on each end.) This means that no H2 is ever transported - we use the existing electrical grid for transmission, and H2 for storage. Best of both worlds. And if the H2 is created *almost* on demand, then no target for terrorism either. Unlike, say, the Alaskan Pipeline... or gas refineries... or tanker trucks... or gas stations...
So, replace "hydrogen" with "CNG" in my above FUD, I mean, post.
Shame Clinton, with Kerry support, voted against drilling in the ANWR region of Alaska. Could be pumping a million barrels a day from there and this would not be happening right now.
And Kerry has the balls to put the blame on someone else.
Its the Liberals who are the greenpeace lovers and do not want to drill anywhere.
Where in the hell is the oil going to come from then Mr. Kerry?
sorry... but there is no evidence that there was that much oil under the arctic range... why destroy a pristine environment to get access to doubtful oil supplies???
Originally posted by billybobsky
msannti,
sorry... but there is no evidence that there was that much oil under the arctic range... why destroy a pristine environment to get access to doubtful oil supplies???
Do you have any proof it would "destroy" the artic range or are you just reciting talking points?
Moreno Valley, CA.
$2.32
Originally posted by trumptman
Do you have any proof it would "destroy" the artic range or are you just reciting talking points?
Moreno Valley, CA.
$2.32
the point is Nick that there is no evidence of vast deposits of oil in the arctic range... but yes, there would be at least local devastation of the environment and we all know that these rigs are rarely if ever self contained... we really don't know much about arctic tundra to say what the effect would be in the short/long run... basically there are too many doubts to make this sort of investment worth it... we are better situated if we devoted our resources to alternative fuels instead of a quick fix to find a new source...
Sound well grounded logic if i do say so myself... I read krugman's very fair analysis of the arctic debate last year and i tended to agree with most of what he said...
Originally posted by billybobsky
the point is Nick that there is no evidence of vast deposits of oil in the arctic range...
yeah, all that oil in the Exxon Valdez was from Mars.
Originally posted by Jubelum
yeah, all that oil in the Exxon Valdez was from Mars.