OT: Gas Prices

[Atrocities]

A simple little poll to see what you think.

Please ONLY U.S. Members only.

[Renegade 13]

Bah! US members only...

Gas prices are hurting everyone, not just Americans!

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

I haven't voted anywhere, but..... Are the oil companies ripping us off? A wholehearted YES. YES they DO.

Just think - when did you last hear about an oil refinery being built? The global oil companies are deliberately keeping oil production and refining low, to keep the price high. In the last few decades there have been no oil refineries that started production, only those who have stopped producing; remember, after Katrina, the oil companies warning us about how their loss of a few refineries would hit oil prices because of the lessened capacity? If anything, Katrina benefited the oil companies; they could now sell less oil for more ca$h, making a better profit than when those refineries were still running. The loss of a few refineries hurting the oil companies? Bah! It was only beneficial to them!

Oil companies are ripping us off, and have been doing so for decades.

[Atrocities]

Right now, because of the mid term elections, I wanted to keep the poll a U.S. member only.

[Rollo]

Just for reference, gas currently costs about $6.00 per gallon where I live.

What is your complaint about US gas prices exactly?

[Slick]

Don't get me wrong, I hate the high gas prices as much as the next guy and Hawaii is (or was last week) the state with the highest gas prices.

But consider this: check out the prices of other liquids you use in every day life and convert to price per gallon and you might be surprised. Also consider what it takes to make one gallon of that liquid.

milk
juice
liquid soap
soda
sports drink
and the one that makes me laugh: bottled water.

Gasoline couldn't cost less per gallon than bottled water, could it???? Water is free!!! and perfectly fine out of any tap. Go figure.

[Will]

Ok, I voted:
1) Maybe. While true that there has been zero increased refining capacity since... I think around 1970... it is also true that the cost of a barrel of crude oil is hovering close to $80 right now; for comparison, I remember that precisely 5 years ago, the same barrel of crude oil cost between $15 and $20. Only reason I remember this is that there are some small oil producers in the town my parents live in, and to operate the small wells, $20 was considered the break-even point. Also, rather than assume a vast conspiracy to make all of us pay more by reducing capacity of refineries, consider that it costs a lot to build and open a refinery; nobody will want it close to where they live and/or work; environmental regulations are so strict for new industrial buildings that it is very difficult to make new refineries; and, all the oil companies know that sometime in the near future, there will be so little oil left, which will be hard to get at, and will cost so much, that it does not justify the investment in more refineries.

2) Other. I don't own a car at school, so it does no impact me directly. But, price of gas is strongly correlated to price of transport, so I indirectly feel the costs via that.

3) Maybe. Democrats would probably propose to mandate via law a minimum MPG for (road) vehicles, to be phased in over a period of X years; Republicans would probably propose more tax cuts. I don't think either will sway the middle 60% of the US, since they know that neither proposal stands any chance of passing at this point.

4) $2.50-$3.00. Gas prices 5 years ago: $1.00/gallon, crude prices 5 years ago: $20/barrel. Gas prices now: $2.75/gallon (in Los Angeles), crude prices now: $71. If you scale it up, gas prices should actually be higher than $3, but part of the cost is overhead, so about in the $2.50-$3.00 range is right.

[Caduceus]

Yet the head of Exxon just retired with a multi-million dollar severance package.

Read it here (http://www.syracuse.com/business/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/business-2/114509206242180.xml&coll=1) .

[Azselendor]

Not to mention oil companies are generating THE highest profit margins in human history right now. Not some, most, or highest in recent years. THE HIGHEST.


I remember when gas was 0.75 cents a gallon and I'm not even 30. Now I'm paying 4 times that so my car and be something more than an expensive driveway ornament.

Part of this is inflation, the other part, a much larger part, is greed. The problem is the corrupt government in many national captials are slaves to big oil. I'd like to see a couple of politicians find their you know what and stand up to them.

[Phoenix-D]

Rollo said:
Just for reference, gas currently costs about $6.00 per gallon where I live.

What is your complaint about US gas prices exactly?



And how much of that is taxes?

Also, we have states bigger than your entire *country*. Things are a liiiitle bit more spread out here, which leads to longer drives.

I'm moving cross country later this year, and the resulting drive is 1000 miles. You driving that far would probably take you all the way to Portugal, going through several other countries..

[Azselendor]

Pheonix, distance is not a factor in oil prices. If I remember right, Europe is getting much of thier oil out of former soviet bloc countries and I wouldn't be surprised there is some bad blood there.

Wasn't there a thing in the news a few months ago with Russia and Ukraine squabbling over oil access and that was threatening to raise oil prices in europe as a whole?

[Phoenix-D]

No, it isn't. It is a factor in how much gas prices hurt, though.

[Renegade 13]

Rollo said:
Just for reference, gas currently costs about $6.00 per gallon where I live.

What is your complaint about US gas prices exactly?


I too am not sure what American's are complaining about. Currently, where I live, we're paying approx. $1.15/liter!. Taking into account the difference between Canadian and American dollars and converting liters to gallons, we in Canada are paying the equivalent of $3.83/gallon!

According to Will, you're only paying about $2.75 per gallon. We're paying over a dollar more per gallon than you are, and up here in Canada the average distance a person has to travel per year is much farther than the average American...the country is larger and less populous, equalling greater travel distances, on average. Not to mention rural people like me, who have much much farther distances to travel of average...

I'd say you have it pretty easy.

[Will]

Caduceus said:
Yet the head of Exxon just retired with a multi-million dollar severance package.

Read it here (http://www.syracuse.com/business/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/business-2/114509206242180.xml&coll=1) .

While it seems outrageous to us "common people", multi-million dollar severance packages, and even multi-million dollar salaries, are par for the course in Corporate USA. Top executives are valuable to companies based on business experience and connections with other top executives; the salaries remain so high because if the companies don't pay the outrageous sums, the executives go to other companies that WILL pay. Similarly, severance packages are high amounts because it is very bad business to burn bridges. The person leaving the company will still have lots of contacts throughout the corporate world, and can influence those contacts. It's best to spend what amounts to pocket change (for the corporation) to the departing executive, to keep them happy and to have them not complaining loudly to everyone s/he knows about the company.

Not saying I think it's a good thing, just saying it's not limited to oil companies, and there is an economic reason for it.

[Caduceus]

"What about our stockholders, Bob? Who's looking out for them?"

- From "The Incredibles"

[Atrocities]

Rollo said:
Just for reference, gas currently costs about $6.00 per gallon where I live.

What is your complaint about US gas prices exactly?



We so not live where you live. And your cost per gallon of gas is mostly tax and not Oil Company Greed.

[PDF]

Atrocities said:

Rollo said:
Just for reference, gas currently costs about $6.00 per gallon where I live.

What is your complaint about US gas prices exactly?



We so not live where you live. And your cost per gallon of gas is mostly tax and not Oil Company Greed.


I live near Rollo it seems..
As for USA maybe you shouldn't have Oil Company executives as Government heads ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

[Atrocities]

Well said.

[shinigami]

Are the oil companies sticking it to us? Sure they are.

Should the government do something about it? No, its called free enterprise. You have the option to not pay that outrageous price for gas. Of course, if you exercise that choice then you may also be choosing to not work and by extension, not eat, but you do have that choice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Seriously, I don't feel that it is the government's place to step in and do something about high prices. History has shown that whenever the price of a product goes higher than the market will bear people will start to find alternatives.

Now, having said all that, I do believe that the oil lobby uses our government to squash any alternatives that come along. My solution, ban all lobbying of Congress. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

[Jack Simth]

The anti-trust laws were made for a reason.

When a company successfully kills all large competitors, especially in a fairly necessary industry (fuel, building materials, food, et cetera), it can do things that can't be done otherwise.

A small company underselling you? No problem; they're still small, with a limited distribution area. Sell at a loss in that area until your opponent goes under, then raise prices back up to wherever you feel like it. Revenues from elsewhere will cover the shortfall, which will be fairly short-term, and in return, you maintain an effective monopoly.

Getting tired of doing the above every three years? Have a chat with all your suppliers / business customers, and arrange for exclusive contracts. They don't sell to / buy from anyone else. Your currently small competition can't sell to your customers and can't buy supplies. Shortly thereafter, they go under - no reaction required.

Want to be un-boycottable? No problem. Either of the above pretty much eliminates all competition; they don't buy from you, they go without. Try making a skyscraper without steel or concrete. Workers striking? Pity most of their skills aren't useful anywhere else. They're stuck with whatever wages you say. Quality sucks? Long as you can avoid lawsuits over the quality of your materials (e.g., it's not up to the specs you said it was, causing the bridge to fall - simple fix, if you're the only business; get it in writing that they won't hold you accountable for such things), they can't do a thing about it, as there's nowhere else to turn.

And of course, once you've integrated horizontally (all of that stage of the business - refining ore into steel, say) you can integrate vertically quite easily (for the previous example, that would be mining the ore, fabricating the beams, et cetera) and eliminate competition at other layers simply by not buying from them / selling to them at much higher prices.

THESE HAPPENED. That's why there's laws that supposedly stop such tactics in place in the US. They don't always seem to be enforced (RIAA and TicketMaster come to mind), but they're in place. Slight trouble with Big Oil, though, it's international. Federal law can't control what they do on the other side of the pond, and having the UN take such steps would be ... too scary.

[PvK]

Gas companies are ripping US customers off, using the excuses of current events (Gulf war, hurricanes) to raise prices even though it just means billions of profit for them.

Gas costs $6.00 outside the US because the governments are less supportive of mass consumption of fuel (fewer subsidies, more tax).

More important though is global warming and destruction caused by human carbon emissions. Humans are killing the planet, essentially because we are selfish short-sighted morons, and that's way more important than "prices at the pump", whatever pleasure some people have from commuting to a city job as the only passenger in a ridiculously enormous truck or SUV, and so on. As more and more countries (or just China, all by itself) motorize on the American model, good luck for the planet's ecology.

PvK

[Renegade 13]

That is, if you believe all the media sensationalism about global warming...personally I've taken a look at the 'evidence' and have found it lacking. I believe it's part of a natural cycle, perhaps slightly (though not significantly on a geological timescale) accelerated by mankind's actions. Greenhouse gases rise, then they natually fall, resulting in a natural ice age. Greenhouse gases rise, raising temps. out of ice age, until greenhouse gas level rise too much, plunging into an ice age...etc etc ad nauseum

But that's a subject for another thread...

[PvK]

No, media is late to the game. I've been listenning to the scientists who have been saying this for decades, and who are saying it louder and louder as things get worse and worse. Yes there have been ice age cycles in the past, but we are also accelerating things a lot. Greenhouse gasses from life are a cyclical system, but humans are defossilizing huge amounts of carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere, which is not part of the cycle except when a major asteroid has hit the planet and has caused mass extinctions. Only this time, we're making our own. I am really worried about what has been said recently about the effects of ocean warming, and the general health of the oceans, and of birds and other animals, and eventually us (though we're the only ones who may deserve to be extinct...).

[Atrocities]

shinigami said:
Are the oil companies sticking it to us? Sure they are.

Should the government do something about it? No, its called free enterprise. You have the option to not pay that outrageous price for gas. Of course, if you exercise that choice then you may also be choosing to not work and by extension, not eat, but you do have that choice. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Seriously, I don't feel that it is the government's place to step in and do something about high prices. History has shown that whenever the price of a product goes higher than the market will bear people will start to find alternatives.

Now, having said all that, I do believe that the oil lobby uses our government to squash any alternatives that come along. My solution, ban all lobbying of Congress. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif




the problem is, there is not a free market. The oil company is protected by the government. Just try and start a new oil company. We as consumers are captive to the monopoly that is the oil industry.

[Renegade 13]

There is evidence pointing to ocean levels that were 6 meters higher than today's levels. This evidence includes oceanic wear on rocks far above today's high-tide levels on cliffs in Alaska, and old coral reefs that are high and dry above current sea levels.

This shows ocean levels have been much higher in the past and thus the average worldwide temperature must have been much higher. Life adapted, or died out. That's life for you. Attempting to stop climate change is a futile battle, it will happen whether or not you want it to. The rate can be altered, but not forever.

Like I mentioned before, when the Earth heats too much we plunge into another ice age. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system, it will adapt. Perhaps scientists have not surmised the mechanism yet, but it has historically happened, and there's no real reason to believe it will not happen again.

I'm not saying we need another ice age! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Though actually, I would like it. I love winter! Maybe you southern people would learn what it's like living in the cold...Floridians would learn 20C isn't cold enough to turn the furnace on!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

Sure, there are feedback mechanisms.
But its not a good idea to turn the furnace on when its already hot out.

[Atrocities]

not all of global warming is because of the US and our gas guzzeling wasteful way of erogant living. What about volcano eruptions, forest fires, natural warming trends, tbe changes in the megnetic poles, etc. Don't blame it all on the US.

[Suicide Junkie]

Its not about blame, its about fixing things.

[Atrocities]

I am all for doing my part. I am a big conservationist myself and have always gone out of my way to use less.

[Captain Kwok]

Renegade 13 said:
...personally I've taken a look at the 'evidence' and have found it lacking...



And I'm sure that a 1st year university student (no offence intended) can really interpret the evidence better than the large percentage of professional scientists who do this for a living. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:

Renegade 13 said:
...personally I've taken a look at the 'evidence' and have found it lacking...



And I'm sure that a 1st year university student (no offence intended) can really interpret the evidence better than the large percentage of professional scientists who do this for a living. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif


No offense taken http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif However, I should correct you; I'm no longer in university. I was forced to leave due to some...rather unpleasant and severe personal issues. I think I still have a slightly better than average knowledge of science though, I try to keep learning http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Now for the debate! Everyone knows that data can be twisted to suit the agenda or personal beliefs of whoever is analyzing it. As the saying goes "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

I would have to question these scientists who are doing the analyzing of the data. After all, preconceived notions will influence people, no matter how hard you strive to keep bias out of science, at some point with climatology personal analysis comes into it. Where one scientist may see one thing, another will see something totally different.

Just think that everyone "knew" 500 years ago that the Earth was flat, just like everyone today "knows" that global warming is a fact...even though there is a lot that we don't understand about the intricacies of the way the world works. Granted, the above analogy has deep flaws, but pervasive myths have a way of self-perpetuating themselves. If someone is raised being told that global warming is a fact, they will believe it. They will, perhaps, see it where it does not exist.

There are also groups of scientists (who aren't merely know-it-all 19 year-olds http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif) who do study this for a living, who do not agree with the theory of global warming. Granted they are in the minority right now, but to make another, perhaps more apt analogy.

In cosmology, string theory was first proposed about 30 years ago, if memory serves. The theory was derided by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers. Today it is one of the leading theories. Just because a theory does not have much support in the scientific community, does not mean it is invalid. The same could apply in this situation.

Whew...didn't realize I could be so long-winded. Now please, show me the error of my ways and point out the flaws in my logic. I always enjoy learning something new! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif BTW, not being sarcastic, I really do want to see if holes can be poked in my logic! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Azselendor]

Natural causes of global warming is only a small percentage of the problem - and one that we can't really do much about. What we can do something about is cleaning up the way we live.

The problem is money, however. To clean up the world would most likely bankrupt every nation in the world five times over.

[rdouglass]

Yes, I think the oil companies are ripping us off and doing it because they can.

I vote for archologies (at least IIRC that's what they're called). There are places currently that are trying them small scale and they are meeting with mixed results.

Today, I drive to work and back 35 miles round trip and burn approx 2 1/2 gal gasoline to do it. 200 years ago I would have climbed down my stairs from my upstairs living quarters to my street level shop.

The new(!?) idea is to go back to these community environments where you can do all your daily tasks (work, shop, etc.) without having to drive a vehicle. What is an archology except one of these communities on steroids.

I've seen recent Discovery Channel (and other) shows on floating cities, gigantic city skyscrapers and other such constructs. Didn't notice a car road in any of them. And I don't think there are too many that would disagree that if we eliminated automobiles, gas would be cheaper and the earth would be a little cooler. No we would not stop any normal climactic changes, but we would induce them less.

[Renegade 13]

KlvinoHRGA said:
Natural causes of global warming is only a small percentage of the problem - and one that we can't really do much about. What we can do something about is cleaning up the way we live.

The problem is money, however. To clean up the world would most likely bankrupt every nation in the world five times over.


All it'd take is one or two large volcanic eruptions to emit gigatons of greenhouse gases, and make any human effort to stop greenhouse gas emissions futile.

[PvK]

Ya, or an asteroid strike. So, you're saying, we may as well cause cataclysms ourselves?

Y'know, that SUV blocking my view would have flown off the bridge if the driver had a natural stroke or heart attack, so I may as well have shoved them off the bridge. Falling to its death was a natural process which I just helped along, and I profitted from it, so it's all good, right?

PvK

[Renegade 13]

PvK said:
Ya, or an asteroid strike. So, you're saying, we may as well cause cataclysms ourselves?

Y'know, that SUV blocking my view would have flown off the bridge if the driver had a natural stroke or heart attack, so I may as well have shoved them off the bridge. Falling to its death was a natural process which I just helped along, and I profitted from it, so it's all good, right?

PvK


Nope. I think we should do what we can to keep emissions low, within reason.

However, it won't take much for nature to undo anything mankind tries to do (as has been shown multiple times in the past). If something like Krakatoa erupts again...well that'd put a chunk of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, many of them worse than just CO2 (water vapor for one is worse than CO2 if I recall correctly, methane as well for retaining heat).

Comparing an erupting volcano to pushing a person of a bridge...well that's just ludicrous.

[ToddT]

In regurds to gas/oil prices, you guys are leaving out the speculators and hedges funds, that have a intrest in driving up prices for their own needs.

gloabal warming, volcues do spew a lot of gases,b ut the also seend large quanties of ash into the upper atmaosphere causeing temps to actually drop. Mt pinatoba (sp) causes a slight drop for around a year.
that also applie to all exaust emissions, they contain particulate matter that has the same effect. so both the burining of oil has been sending both componets into the atmosphere. one tends to cause heating the other cooling.
funny thing particulate emmissions from us and europe are dropping, but are rising in china and india. cleaning up the the particulate emmisions are easy, the co2...........

[Atrocities]

People in the US started buying those huge SUV's because gas was affordable and the big SUV's were something that the Jones had so they had to have em.

I hate huge cars, SUV's, and most huge trucks. I don't see a purpose to them if your not using them to hull things and or huge amounts of people.

Now Gas prices have spiked and the poor are being priced right off the road. There are calls by some to raise the gas tax in order to "punish" SUV drivers. To me that is just utterly [censored] silly. The only ones who would be hurt by a $3.00 gas tax would be people like me who can barely aford the current price of gas. Hell I am about $0.50 per gallon away from being permentaly forced off the road. And I am not alone.

Higher gas prices serve only to make the roads less congested for the rich, the very people who can aford higher prices and taxes. The people who buy and drive those huge mother [censored] SUV's in the first place.

Ya, lets punish them by raising the price of gas to the point where only they can aford to drive. Ya, what a real incentive for them to stop driving those gas guzzling SUV's, price the poor and lower income right off the road and presto... no more congestion. Ya, bang on idea there guys.

Less drives, as we all know the ratio, 80% of Americans are at the poverty level or within a pay check of it, so by raising the gas prices to $4.00 and higher per gallon, most of us will be priced right off the road. Less drivers means less congestion. Not nessassarly less polution mind you, as those who can aford to buy those huge SUV's, will still be out their driving them, but with far less traffic.

But hey, this is progress in a free market so who am I to *****.

[Atrocities]

Brazil had the right idea back in the 80's. Now they are about a year away from telling OPEC and the Oil companies to piss off. If they can make sugar based fuel work with flex fuel cars, then why in the hell can't we?

[Suicide Junkie]

Wouldn't it be nice to have prices much higher, but have your first X liters subsidized and cheap?

You should add something like this to your plan in the ruler of the world thread.

[Dragonswrd]

We don't have anything here like "flex fuel cars" because the car manufacturers won't bring them here. There is no market for them. People here like to drive their gas guzzling SUVs. Those that have posted here, are the minority. I would say about 75 to 80% of those I have talked to want to get an SUV. They don't care about the gas prices or the environment. But then again most Americans are complete morons (see last presidential election). And yes I am a citizen of the US, born and raised. And because the government has shown that our voices don't matter, no one is willing to try to change anything.

[Ragnarok-X]

Atrocities said:
Brazil had the right idea back in the 80's. Now they are about a year away from telling OPEC and the Oil companies to piss off. If they can make sugar based fuel work with flex fuel cars, then why in the hell can't we?



Because you precious mr. president is having sex with the oil/gas industry ?

btw. Anyone heard about the project in sweden ? They are doing some crop/biomass thingy and are planning to be fully indepedent of standart oil until 2020.

[Atrocities]

Suicide Junkie said:
Wouldn't it be nice to have prices much higher, but have your first X liters subsidized and cheap?

You should add something like this to your plan in the ruler of the world thread.



Is that like Canadian humor or something? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Atrocities]

Dragonswrd said:
We don't have anything here like "flex fuel cars" because the car manufacturers won't bring them here. There is no market for them. People here like to drive their gas guzzling SUVs. Those that have posted here, are the minority. I would say about 75 to 80% of those I have talked to want to get an SUV. They don't care about the gas prices or the environment. But then again most Americans are complete morons (see last presidential election). And yes I am a citizen of the US, born and raised. And because the government has shown that our voices don't matter, no one is willing to try to change anything.



US car manufactures do manufacture flex fuel cars, GM for one. They just don't sell them here because like you said, there is no market for them here....... Bush is an oil man thats for sure, he is also crippeling pro big business, as many presidents have been, and there is simply too much money coming from the oil lobby to stand against them. SO yes, lobby reform is also a must.

[Sivran]

Flex fuel sucks. Takes too much energy to produce the ethanol. And where does that energy come from? Fossil fuels.

Biodiesel, man. Biodiesel. A stock diesel can run it. A few modifications help it last longer. And, you're recycling, using waste from restaurants, using vegetable and other oils that were already produced and used for another purpose.

I don't care that oil's up to 70 bucks. The oil companies can afford to lower gas prices, but they've discovered we sheep will tolerate higher prices. It's as much our fault as theirs.

[Renegade 13]

Nuclear power. I was reading about a 'new' type of reactor that will actually utilize the waste materials from conventional nuclear reactors, and would also be much more efficient. The waste generated would still be radioactive and thus toxic, but the half life is something like 100 or 150 years rather than the current 10,000 or so.

But with general public opinion being extremely anti-nuclear power, any chance of the newer, better reactors being built isn't likely. Me, I'm all for nuclear reactors...just not in my backyard! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Nuclear is the way to go though. That'll cut dependence on oil by a lot, and also make coal-burning electricity plants (of which the US has a LOT) obsolete.

[Azselendor]

I read about that too, basically it takes the nuclear waste and burns off any usable material in it for energy and leaves us with concentrate nuclear waster which can be ten to a hundred times more toxic.

Thanks but No Thanks.

[Suicide Junkie]

"Burn it until it is cold enough to eat"

[ToddT]

Nuclear power is not any better long term then fossil fuels, in that, theres estimated to be around 100 years worth of usuable fuel, to meet current and future energy needs.
There is a work around but has some nasty pit falls. Breeder reactors, current designs not upto the task but researching new ones deffinitely not politically viable.
Breeder reactors readily produce weapons grade nuclear materials.
Actually highr gas prices do have an upside they make alternatives more viable economically.
SUV's where built in part because they did not have to meet mileage and emmission standards of cars, resulting in lower production costs to auto makers(its not just the higher markups they get). SUV's in part where a quick fix to bottom lines. and we all know what quick fixes often lead to.

[Renegade 13]

KlvinoHRGA said:
I read about that too, basically it takes the nuclear waste and burns off any usable material in it for energy and leaves us with concentrate nuclear waster which can be ten to a hundred times more toxic.

Thanks but No Thanks.


Nope, that's not what I was referring to. I'll see if I have some time to do some research and find some links for you to look at. This waste would be much less toxic, not more.

It's too bad space flight isn't more reliable; we could then just send nulear waste into the sun!

[Renegade 13]

Fast Neutron Reactor Wikipedia Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron_reactor)

It's fast-neutron reactors I was thinking about. I've included a link to get you started.

They are capable of 'burning' spent nuclear fuel from conventional thermal reactors, and rendering such spent fuel much less toxic at the same time.

[Baron Munchausen]

Renegade 13 said:
Fast Neutron Reactor Wikipedia Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_neutron_reactor)

It's fast-neutron reactors I was thinking about. I've included a link to get you started.

They are capable of 'burning' spent nuclear fuel from conventional thermal reactors, and rendering such spent fuel much less toxic at the same time.



It might have been the 'Integral Fast Reactor' actually. This is a specific type of 'fast neutron reactor' designed to completely use up the fuel and leave very little radioactive waste. The US project to develop this was in the news in the early nineties and that's where you might have heard of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

[Renegade 13]

That could easily be the reactor I was thinking of. I actually read about it in the Dec. 2005 Scientific American, but I can't remember the exact content of the article. Might be they were planning on resurrecting the project.

[capnq]

Renegade 13 said:
It's too bad space flight isn't more reliable; we could then just send nulear waste into the sun!

Someday our descendants are going to discover a use for our nuclear "waste" and will be annoyed at us for making the stuff so difficult to recover. (No smiley; not kidding.)

[shinigami]

The begining of an alternative? (http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn9040-bio-fuel-cells-could-power-portable-gadgets.html)

Granted it is still a long way off but if it can be perfected and refined...

[Renegade 13]

capnq said:
Someday our descendants are going to discover a use for our nuclear "waste" and will be annoyed at us for making the stuff so difficult to recover. (No smiley; not kidding.)

?????

[Jack Simth]

He's not joking; remember how you posted....

Renegade 13 said:
...I was reading about a 'new' type of reactor that will actually utilize the waste materials from conventional nuclear reactors...


Well, if that becomes quite successfull, and we've tossed all our nuclear waste into the sun, we can't get it back to power the new plants.....

[Renegade 13]

Ahhhh.

I was just being a little dense I guess, not seeing the obvious. Thanks for the clarification! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[jeffel]

Some of this is re-tread, but still, I thought it worth mentioning.

1. The Oil companys are ripping us off.
2. Gas should be more expensive.
3. We need to stop burning things to provide energy.

I am sure that I need to clarify #2 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I think that gas taxes need to be higher and that the additional proceeds be used to shore up our transportation infrastructure and to provide research into alternative energies.

This approach has two main advantages.
1. Roads and other Transportation Infrastructure can be used to support even alternative energy cars.
2. At the same time we ramp down the use of fossil fuels, we would be encouraging the development of their replacements.

Recently there has been a lot of push in the media for bio-diesel and other fuels made from crops. While these fuels are an improvement over dependence on fossil oil, it still has some major drawbacks, most notably that they still release poisonous gasses into the atmosphere.

While bio-fuel is a good interim step, it does not (IMO) represent a long term solution.

Personally, I think that the hydrogen fuel cell is the future of portable energy and that a combination of solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and tidal energy is the ideal way to provide the raw energy for "refueling" those cells.

[Parasite]

1. The Oil Companies are ripping us off. True, but so is everyone else.
2. Gas should be more expensive. Anything useful that they are not making anymore will rise in price as demand goes up and, as stated, supply goes down.
3. Stop burning things... Well, maybe. Give me a better, cheaper solution and I will. Taxes on gas will make the old solution more expensive and new better technology seem more reasonable.

I filled up my gas tank this weekend. Man it was expensive. Over $30 dollars for a month of gas. I still wonder how I was able to put 11 gallans into my 10 gallon tank. The gas was 10 cents cheaper than the other stations... Hmmmmm.

In case you are wondering, here is my car. Lifetime average of 53.1 miles a gallon and rated SULEV or Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle. I have had it four years and counting. Still loving it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif (see attachment)

[Azselendor]

Everyone might be ripping us off, but the Oil Industry is making them all look like amatures. The problem is demand is going up and up and and they can keep raising prices. If you increase taxes on it, people will still pay.

It's like walmart syndrome.

[capnq]

Actually, I wasn't talking about some theoretical nuclear waste tossed into the the sun, but about the glassified waste (http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/solidification/index.htm) that we're currently producing as a storage solution.

[dogscoff]

You want lower fuel bills? Get one of these: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4930794.stm

I've been wanting a Smartcar for ages, but it's just a little too small for me & my wife to have it as our only vehicle.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I wouldn't fit very well in the front seat and I'm not sure I can beleive anybody but a midget could fit in the back.

[Azselendor]

I heard something interesting and something worrying too.

An analyst on CNN attributed rising gas prices to demand from China as well as the oil industry gouging. At first I thought that was harmless, but then the what-if, paranoid thought entered my mind that maybe China is forcing gas prices up intentionally. They don't have to worry about loosing money on paying higher gas prices since most of the US's merchandise and goods are currently being produced in china meaning china gets the money to pay higher prices.

Just a paranoid thought.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

There's a lot of people in china.

[Renegade 13]

And there's some scary people in charge of China...

[Ragnarok-X]

FYI,
over here one litre of gas (not diesel, lead-free) costs exactly 1,63 $ atm. You can see where your prices are going within the next months, should the iran-issue further escalate.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Yes, but they don't need to do anything to make their populace consume a lot.

[Baron Munchausen]

KlvinoHRGA said:
I heard something interesting and something worrying too.

An analyst on CNN attributed rising gas prices to demand from China as well as the oil industry gouging. At first I thought that was harmless, but then the what-if, paranoid thought entered my mind that maybe China is forcing gas prices up intentionally. They don't have to worry about loosing money on paying higher gas prices since most of the US's merchandise and goods are currently being produced in china meaning china gets the money to pay higher prices.

Just a paranoid thought.



China is #2 in petroluem usage, having recently passed Japan, but that doesn't tell the whole story. The US is still way out ahead of China in total usage at over 20 million barrels a day while China 'only' uses about 6.5 millions barrels a day. Incredibly, the increase in USA oil usage over the last decade has been about as much as China's total usage today! Looks like the lessons of the 1970s oil shocks have not been learned. Americans just cannot seem to learn the meaning of 'conserve'... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

Interesting statistics and info: http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

http://www.energybulletin.net/15185.html

How's this for nerve? The leader of a country that consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day is warning the leader of a country that consumes some 6.5 million barrels not to try to lock up world oil resources. When President Bush welcomes the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, to the White House today, the American complaint will be that China's appetite for oil affects its stance on Iran, Sudan and other trouble spots.

[Captain Kwok]

I think it's even more sad when you consider that China also has more than 4x the population of the US...

Unfortunately it's almost as bad per capita north of the border... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

[Fyron]

Of course, most of China is still a 3rd world country... The big cities are modernizing, but most of the people have no access to automobiles.

[Azselendor]

Give it time, China is industrializing.


But the paranoid thought in the back of my head is a scenario where gas prices drop to 60 dollars a barrel and china says "Nope, we'll give you 70 instead!".

But that's just a paranoid thought, the reality is that we americans preach conservation one hand and consume with the other.

[Renegade 13]

Wow...

I just did a bit of a search for information on the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada, since I know there's a tremendous amount of oil there. I just never knew how much oil...

According to estimates, there is 1.7 to 2.5 trillion barrels of oil in the tar sands. That's 1,700,000,000,000 to 2,500,000,000,000 barrels! Enough to supply the US at its current rate of consumption for nearly 250 years!

The catch is that it is very expensive to recover the oil from the sands. Only about 10% of that oil is economically recoverable. Still, having an oil reserve of 170-250 billion barrels in just that one oil field (compared to the US having 21 billion barrels reserve) is quite something.

I wonder how many tons of living matter had to have died in that general area to have ended up as that amount of oil....

[Captain Kwok]

Wasn't that part of Alberta part of an inland sea back at the time of the dinosaurs?

[Morkilus]

Happy birthday, R13!

On the subject of tar sands, you're completely on the target there... if we want oil, we'll find a way to get it. People will see that there is a cheaper way soon enough; here in Utah, the Gov's been eager to set up new mining operations, and they're resuming uranium mining and exploration, not to mention tar sands. And they're finally starting to collect natural gas from current coal mines, which previously was simply vented into the atmosphere. And we complain about farting cows... :roll:

[Renegade 13]

Morkilus said:
Happy birthday, R13!

Thanks a lot Morkilus! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Kamog]

I filled up my car with gas today. $1.195 per liter! It seems that once the price exceeded $1, it just keeps going higher.

[Atrocities]

You have to blame your governments excessively high tax on that one. You pay about the same per barrel of oil as we do but you have a very high gas tax.

[Renegade 13]

And we all have to blame the oil companies for gouging everyone.

[Atrocities]

There are already cries to increase both state and federal gas taxes because they are loosing money since people are cutting back do to the high prices. This is the same BS that the electric companies love too pull on us.

"We need you to conserve 20%" - we do and they sell that extra 20% to some other state and make [censored] loads of $$$$ off of it, then cry that domestic sales are down by 20% and raise rates by 20%. So now your not only using 20% less, but your now paying 20% more for using less.

It would be a criminal act, and should be viewed as one, to impose a new tax, or raise any gas taxes in an effort to exploit the current situation.

Any politican that thinks raising the gas tax will improve our economy is not worth voting for.

My $0.02 worth.

[Thermodyne]

OPEC uses a cartel to hold up prices, we need to form a cartel to hold down prices. When gas is over $2.50, we only buy it on odd days.

[Phoenix-D]

Unless you actually reduce the amount of gas consumed, that'll do nothing.

[Thermodyne]

Phoenix-D said:
Unless you actually reduce the amount of gas consumed, that'll do nothing.



Well actually it would throw a monkey wrench into the supply on demand system that is now being used. To increase profits, the oil companies keep inventories at absolute minimums to meet demand. While consumption of gas in the US has risen every year, storage capacity has fallen. They now use these “on demand” inventory numbers to influence price. And of late, they have manipulated the amount of fuel in storage downward so as to pressure the price upwards. If no one bought gas every other day, it would create a huge glut of gas and force prices down. It would also cause some spot shortages on “buy” days, but also create a net lowering of gas consumption. The three stations that my family owns are being held at minimum storage on site. The oil company used to almost force us to keep the tanks full. Now they penalize us for extra deliveries. Each station pumps more than a tanker a day, so at least twice a week we need two deliveries a day. We now pay extra for the second tanker. In the past, we got a discount on the additional loads. They are also holding our credit card receipts and extra day now. That cost us over a 100K in lost cash flow. And the maximum credit card charge at the pump is $70 dollars, which won’t fill up the vehicles that many people around here drive, this drives people to top off, which further stresses limited supplies. The oil companies are using every trick in the book to keep supplies tight and prices high.



If everyone cut their usage by 10%, it would also cause an inventory back up. So go burn your neighbors gas hog SUV to the ground and force the price down http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[Kamog]

Gas is so expensive lately! Today I bought gas and it was $1.27 per liter. /threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif

[Renegade 13]

It's even more atrocious than it was this time last year (when the thread was first created). I hesitate to drive for anything other than absolute necessities, it's too bloody expensive.

[Spectarofdeath]

It's $3.20 (a gallon) here, I got gas last monday it was 2.85, by thursday it was 3.20. The experts are saying $4.00 by mid summer. I bet we'll hit $4 by memorial day and $5 before the end of the year. This is getting outrageous. It's pretty bad when it costs you almost half a hours work (if not more) just to pay for the gas to get there.

[Will]

Spectarofdeath said:
It's $3.20 (a gallon) here, I got gas last monday it was 2.85, by thursday it was 3.20. The experts are saying $4.00 by mid summer. I bet we'll hit $4 by memorial day and $5 before the end of the year. This is getting outrageous. It's pretty bad when it costs you almost half a hours work (if not more) just to pay for the gas to get there.


I live close to San Francisco. It hit $3.20/gal a month ago. The station down the street is at $3.60/gal. In the city itself I've seen $3.85/gal.

No doubt in my mind that the average price around here will hit $4/gal by the end of May.

[GuyOfDoom]

Note that despite the "harsh" circumstances forcing the gas price increase Oil companies are making record profits.

[Fyron]

Who'd have thought that supply and demand actually applied in the real world...

[GeorgiaBoy]

Its about $2.90/gal here. On a business trip I saw it for $2.72/gal in SC. I have noticed E85 (an ethanol blend) pop up at a few stations. I heard ethanol is more expensive to produce than gasoline (I am sure it will come down in time..). Problem is that it raises feed prices, causing a ripple effect. There is an effort to produce enzymes (cheaply) that convert crop waste into a fuel...

GB

[GuyOfDoom]

As always your insight is "helpful." The overall point with gas prices being the social trap that's been created to force people to need it. Unless you think for some reason we haven't been able to come up with anything better for 100 years.

[aegisx]

From the gas company side:

http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm

Looking for an opposing link right now...

This one is ok: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5367090

Still haven't found a good site that opposes the oil viewpoint with good data.

[aegisx]

It is a tough situation. They tried to tax the oil companies more in the past (1980) and it had the effect of decreasing domestic production and increasing foreign dependence, which isn't what we want.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html

An alternative energy source is preferable and they are at least starting to look at things like Ethanol. Now Ethanol is not the best solution but progress will not be made overnight.

[GuyOfDoom]

The problem with the oil company "support" article is that they fail to take into account that their "modest" price increases and maintainence factors into just about every other category of expense they claim is higher because of transportation costs.

As for foreign dependance, one of the biggest problems America has is thinking it can produce everything and fully support itself. No economy can do that, we only want to think we can with oil because we've pissed off all the major suppliers of oil.

[aegisx]

We probably cannot produce everything by ourselves, but I think that is a good goal to strive for. Ethonal might be a good idea for us then. We grow a lot of food (i.e. corn) and we are strong in pharmaceuticals/genetic engineering. I would hope we can use that to our advantage in producing plenty of ethonal. There are a bunch of issues right now with corn Ethonal but its a start. I think a Prius that runs on E85 would be a good thing.

[GuyOfDoom]

Ethanol will be a nice stepping stone, but I don't believe it's the "wave of the future." The cost of production for ethanol limiting on how effective it will be right now, unless as you mentioned we engineer something to reduce that.

[aegisx]

Yep, its a start and thats exciting. I think Gas prices will be high for a long time now. It is gonna cost $$$ to convert to a non-oil based infrastructure.

[Raapys]

Hah, here in Norway we've been at $4'ish/gal for years O_O

[GuyOfDoom]

Yes, but there should have been alternatives for a long time now. We're the only developed country out there that hasn't been concerned with fuel economy and the US is also the only country that didn't do the right thing after the gas shortage of the 70's.

[Fyron]

Raapys said:
Hah, here in Norway we've been at $4'ish/gal for years"

That's because Europe has very high taxes on gasoline making it artificially expensive. The US has similar taxes, but not to the extent most European nations do. This is largely because the US can and does produce a lot of its oil natively (more so than Europe can), so has less need to try to limit usage in an effort to reduce trade deficits a bit with OPEC nations et all.

[aegisx]

Also the US cannot be compared to other countries (other than a few) due to the size and the scale of the industrialization. This isn't an excuse though, just has to be taken into consideration when comparing to other countries.

[Renegade 13]

Here in Canada, we haven't been below $1 (CDN) per liter for a long time now (approximately equal to $4/gal). We produce a hell of a lot of oil domestically...too bad producing oil domestically has nothing to do with price, since NAFTA screws us over, as usual.

[Atrocities]

In my state we have the 6th highest gas tax and currently are paying $3.50 a gal for regular. We have three refineries and get our oil directly from Alaska. So I ask you, why the hell is the cost of gas so bloody damned expensive here? Simple, price gouging. The State AGO and many legislators are looking into it. Of course the oil company's, much like the tobacco companies and the energy companies, deny any wrong doing, but we all know better.

[aegisx]

It is not as simple as gouging.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/katrinagasprices.shtm
http://www.illinois.gov/gasprices/pgVspv.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/27/AR2006042701693.html

[Fyron]

*waits for GuyOfDoom's snarky response to aegisx' links, which largely factor in that whole supply and demand thing*

"...the post-hurricane gasoline price increases at the national and regional levels were approximately what would be predicted by the standard supply-and-demand model of a market performing competitively. The conduct of firms in response to the supply shocks from the hurricanes was consistent with competition. In particular, firms diverted supply from lower-priced areas to higher priced areas, firms drew down their inventories, refineries not affected by the hurricanes increased output, and gasoline imports increased."

[aegisx]

More data:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/perfpro/major_findings.htm

The pdf linked there tells you the how much and why.

[Will]

Until there is a cheap, reliable, and scalable method to convert cellulose crop waste into ethanol and misc other chemicals (one would hope fertilizers for the next generation of crops...), ethanol is not the way out. Hopefully some of the research dollars going into biotech can finance a marketable solution. I'm not holding my breath yet.

I suppose American taste in cars doesn't help either. Or the fact that many Americans are so gullible when it comes to marketing claims. For example, I saw an ad for a new Lexus car, a "green, SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle)"... that gets 23mpg. That does not strike me as Super Ultra Low Emissions...

[Spectarofdeath]

It might not be ALL about price gouging but come on, you think those companies aren't watching people getting pissed off about the cost and screaming for new fuel sources? Once those sources are found and established it's going to be bye bye for the oil companies, at least the ones that dont have their hands in the cookie jar and are pulling the strings behind the companies that establish those new sources. It might not even be bye bye, but it more than likely will be bye bye to $36 billion in profits. Which means no more $400 million retirement packages. Which means, "Lets gouge now, just in case, call it a parachute".

[AngleWyrm]

May 15th is national "Don't Buy Gas" day, to protest.

"Rumor has it a gas boycott will be in effect on May 15, 2007. Have you heard of this? ... The e-mail stated, "Do not buy gas on May 15. In April 1997, there was a 'gas out' conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. There are 73,000,000-plus Americans currently on the Internet network, and the average car takes about $30 to $50 to fill up. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000 out of the rich oil company's pockets for just one day. So please do not go to the gas station on May 15, and let's try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day."
Greg M., Lake Charles, La.

[Spectarofdeath]

Only problem with that is I remember that last year, nobody went, gas prices were down the day nobody was buying gas and the next day they went up.

[Fyron]

May 15th sounds like the perfect day to fill up.

[GuyOfDoom]

As mentioned earlier the previous gas shortage caused by OPEC in the 70's caused a few key events to happen. Most other developed nations implemented measures to reduce their dependance on foreign oil by making more efficient vehicles, improving their mass transportation and other measures along that lines.

The US decided it was going to be the "best" and provide everything for itself and starting looking into providing oil for itself. Thus Europe and the like have had "high" gas prices for sometime, but the price has remained relativly consistent. Presently the bottom is falling out of the US's ability to supply it's own oil and thus we're starting to see the shift in prices towards what Europe has seen for awhile.

So what's my problem with American Oil companies you might ask? Well they're the ones that helped push the move for self-dependance so much that NO alternatives were really ever considered. Now we're reaching the point were the end of the world's oil reserves are within a generation and America isn't even close to making a transition off of oil.

Yes there is supply and demand. My problem comes from the fact that most of the demand is artificially generated by the oil companies. There is some influence by world events and natural disasters to be sure, but these are overhyped and over-publicized to help justify the increased prices. If the oil companies actually cared about the general economy of the nation as opposed to their investors it would be a much different story. It's fine if you want to argue for profit margins in a corporation, my problem comes from corporate utilities that literally hold the nation's status in the palm of their hands and choose to still operate with the shareholders in mind rather than the general public.

[aegisx]

The government does not agree with you about demand:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html

"In the IEO2006 reference case, world oil demand grows from 80 million barrels per day in 2003 to 98 million barrels per day in 2015 and 118 million barrels per day in 2030. Demand increases strongly despite world oil prices that are 35 percent higher in 2025 than in last year’s outlook. Much of the growth in oil consumption is projected for the nations of non-OECD Asia, where strong economic growth is expected. Non-OECD Asia (including China and India) accounts for 43 percent of the total increase in world oil use over the projection period. "

And the FAS:

"World Oil Demand and its Effect on Oil Prices"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32530.pdf

[AdmiralMartin]

Who needs gas? What we need are Water Powered (http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/) Cars http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Spectarofdeath]

No, we need a Mr. Fusion.

[Ragnarok-X]

Im paying 1.83 $ for a litre, so 0.26 Gallons. That would be about 7.00 $ for a gallon so please stop complaining.

At least thats what wikipedia tells me about litre:liquid gallon

[geoschmo]

Ragnarok-X said:
Im paying 1.83 $ for a litre, so 0.26 Gallons. That would be about 7.00 $ for a gallon so please stop complaining.

Well, I'm not complaining cause I'm not paying close to that. But it was still quite a shock to pay 40+ dollars to fill my car up the other day. And I just drive a mid-sized four-door sedan. I can remember just a couple years ago the pickup and SUV guys complaining about $40 dollar fillups. Guess my next car I'll be back to the sub-compacts. Unless I can afford a hybrid by then.

[Santiago]

People like to complain, whether its gas prices, sports, weather or politics. If you're not complaining, you're not happy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[AngleWyrm]

AdmiralMartin said:
Who needs gas? What we need are Water Powered (http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/) Cars http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif



Just one little thing about that: How much energy does it take to run the electrolysis process to separate water into it's componant oxygen and hydrogen? That is the amount of energy that would be released from burning it. Thus it is a no-gainer, just putting the job of generating power into the electrolysis phase.

Can this still be a useful invention? Sure, it could be thought of a volatile form of battery, storing power to be used later.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

We need super capacitors.

[Suicide Junkie]

The oil had to get there in the first place. Taking alkalines from your dead neighbour's garage is certainly cheaper than plugging in your old rechargables, but it leaves quite the mess http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[AngleWyrm]

A Wave Farm (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0521-hydro.html) in Portugal for generating power from the movement of the ocean's surface.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/pelamis_515x235.jpg

[Renegade 13]

Best way to go (in my opinion) is to totally skip ethanol, which is utterly impractical, and go straight to hydrogen. If governments around the world pumped a few billion into developing hydrogen powered vehicles that were practical for everyday use, I bet we'd be driving them around in 5 years. Of course, you still need all the new infrastructure to support a hydrogen-based transportation system, and safeguards to make sure that everything doesn't go BOOM! every time there's a car crash, levelling the block! But hydrogen is practical, since hydrogen can be produced from 'clean' renewable energy sources (geothermal, tidal, hydroelectic, nuclear, etc) and would serve as the perfect fuel for vehicles.

The problem is, everyone is obsessed with ethanol at the moment which, if what I once read is correct, would supply only 1/3 of the US demand for fuel even if the entire arable land area of the US was given over to ethanol production. Also ethanol is having a very detrimental effect on agriculture. How you ask? Since more and more of the US corn production is given over to ethanol production, that corn isn't available to feed cattle, pigs, etc, thus making the price of producing cattle, pigs and all that go way up due to the shortage.

[Atrocities]

Many oil companies are diverting crude ear marked for the US market to other markets in order to drive up the prices here.

[Atrocities]

The problem is, everyone is obsessed with ethanol at the moment which, if what I once read is correct, would supply only 1/3 of the US demand for fuel even if the entire arable land area of the US was given over to ethanol production.



This is untrue. This was a lie promoted by anti-ethanol people and the oil companies to mitigate the research and exploration of Corn and corn stocks for fuel. The truth is, like in Brazil, there is more than enough "sugar" products such as sugar beats, corn, and corn stocks in current supply to both supply enough fuel and food for current consumptions. Sure growth would be required but currently only part of the corn is being used to produce fuel. When they switch to using the ENTIRE corn plant the amount of fuel generated can increase up to 50 fold.

[Santiago]

I have to agree with AT about Brazil, A friend goes down there a lot and said they're pretty much independent of foreign oil due to the Ethanol production which they started many years ago.

Also on a business trip last month to Louisiana, many of the people down there were all talking about the new ethanol refineries being built and that a lot of the cotton farmers were seriously considering when not if to switch to corn.

Ethanol is going to happen here in the US. Whether it'll be owned by the oil companies or not, I don't know. Distribution and infrastructure problems still need to be addressed, but realistically it won't be any cheaper.

[Atrocities]

One of the major hindrances to the acceptance of Ethanol isn't just from the oil companies, but from State Governments who derive a ton of money from gas taxes. When Ethanol goes mainstream many state governments as well as the Federal government, will have to scramble to pass new Ethanol fuel taxes. Many states are therefore resistant to accepting Ethanol and other alternative fuels.

Remember when Natural Gas was suppose to be the cheap alternative to Electrical power? Look at what they did there? They hiked the taxes on NG to the point that made NG less cost effective than Public Power.

Right now my state has the 6th largest gas tax in the nation and our beloved Governoress wants to raise the gas tax again because the sales of gas are down thus the revenue from the gas tax is down. This would put our price per gallon of gas over $4.20 a gallon here in WA. Instead of raising the Gas tax to compensate for lower gas sales my state government should temporarily lower the gas tax to help lower income people afford fuel.

Instead of bowing to the pay offs of the oil company to keep our state an oil owned economy the government should embrace alternative fuels and promote ethanol fuel production. Not only should they embrace it, but they should encourage it and help to support it by giving tax breaks to corn and sugar beat farmers, sugar and bio fuel distilleries, distributors and retailers.

But like I said, our government is bought and paid for by the oil company's and therefore any prospective interest in alternative fuels is actively denounced as a waste of time.

[Renegade 13]

Ethanol is *not* a viable alternative in the long run. Unfortunately, I don't have the links to prove it, and don't have the time to find it.

Also, I really think that people in the US need to stop complaining quite so hard about gas prices, considering that prices are so much worse in most other countries. Not liking it is fine, agreeing that we're being gouged, hey I totally agree as well. But seriously, your prices aren't so bad, comparatively.

[GuyOfDoom]

Renegade 13 said:
considering that prices are so much worse in most other countries.



It's not worse, it's more representative of the actual price of oil. The US has been able to have lower gas prices because of it's own supplies, but as mentioned earlier the American oil companies are having a field day playing with those in order to rake in more profits and pointing the fingers at "Acts of God."

As for ethanol, I agree, it's not a long-term alternative. I believe the basic chemistry is that you put in just about what you get out of Ethanol making it not a wise choice for fuel. Hydrogen is a likely long term solution but people have to be willing to settle for a different type of fuel economy. To get the standard 300 mile per tank a Hydrogen car would have to be under extremely high pressure or be almost as large as the car itself. The other problem is finding a decent source as electrolysis of water takes too much energy to be efficient.

[aegisx]

Atrocities said:
One of the major hindrances to the acceptance of Ethanol isn't just from the oil companies, but from State Governments who derive a ton of money from gas taxes. When Ethanol goes mainstream many state governments as well as the Federal government, will have to scramble to pass new Ethanol fuel taxes. Many states are therefore resistant to accepting Ethanol and other alternative fuels.

Remember when Natural Gas was suppose to be the cheap alternative to Electrical power? Look at what they did there? They hiked the taxes on NG to the point that made NG less cost effective than Public Power.

Right now my state has the 6th largest gas tax in the nation and our beloved Governoress wants to raise the gas tax again because the sales of gas are down thus the revenue from the gas tax is down. This would put our price per gallon of gas over $4.20 a gallon here in WA. Instead of raising the Gas tax to compensate for lower gas sales my state government should temporarily lower the gas tax to help lower income people afford fuel.

Instead of bowing to the pay offs of the oil company to keep our state an oil owned economy the government should embrace alternative fuels and promote ethanol fuel production. Not only should they embrace it, but they should encourage it and help to support it by giving tax breaks to corn and sugar beat farmers, sugar and bio fuel distilleries, distributors and retailers.

But like I said, our government is bought and paid for by the oil company's and therefore any prospective interest in alternative fuels is actively denounced as a waste of time.



The government will get paid whether it is oil or corn. You are right about the government getting a lot of money in taxes from gasoline sales. I recall the president mentioning alternative fuels a bunch. Here is an interesting fact:

"The U.S. Postal Service Has The Largest Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fleet In The World. Almost 13 percent of the 289,000 vehicle fleet are alternative fuel vehicles such as hybrids, biodiesel, compressed natural gas, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/

Its just an example of the changes that are already being made.

Did you know they already pay farmers to grow corn?
http://www.ewg.org:16080/farm/region.php?fips=00000
When the demand is there for the ethonal, the corn farmers will sell their corn for that purpose as it will make them more money.

Is Ethonal the best solution? Probably not. Is it better than oil? It sounds like it.

[Erax]

As the resident Brazilian, I thought I'd pop in and add these tidbits:

"Despite having the world's largest sugarcane crop, the 45,000 sq km Brazil currently devotes to sugarcane production amount to only about one-half of one percent of its total land area of some 8.5 million sq km. In addition, the country has more unused potential cropland than any other nation."

Brazil no longer subsidizes its ethanol production. It was heavily subsidized at one point, but is no longer so.

There seems to be some debate about whether 'ethanol takes more energy to produce than it yields'. In any event this debate is over corn ethanol, while sugarcane ethanol produced in Brazil (where sunlight is much more plentiful) has a higher yield.

There are some drawbacks to ethanol, the main one (which most Brazilians are familiar with) being that ethanol engines have trouble starting in cold weather.

All in all I'd say ethanol doesn't work as a 100% substitute for gasoline, but it works as a 'let's consume less fossil fuels so we have more time to develop alternative technologies' kind of solution, especially if mixed into gasoline (Brazil already uses a 20/80 mix, I believe) or in bifuel cars which start up on gasoline and switch to ethanol once they're running, thus bypassing the cold-weather problems.