NationStates Jolt Archive

With gas prices on the rise again, more people in America may have to turn to public transportation or bikes.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.

On second thought, support alternative energy sources, so we're no longer dependent on them. That would solve a lot of our problem, and make America more self sufficient again.

Many gas stations here offer ethanol so I'd get a flexifuel car which comes with a nice tax cut and use whichever fuel happens to be in a cheaper phase of the price bounces at the moment.

That is if I didn't live in a city. With all the traffic jams and shortage on parking spots it's easier to get around in the city with public transport then with a car.

Oh, like price freezes actually work...

Or people don't already take mass transit...

*looks at my Metro Smartrip card* (just like the Oyster Card in London)

http://www.wmata.com/riding/smartrip.cfm#combo

With gas prices on the rise again, more people in America may have to turn to public transportation or bikes.
You assume they have access or a feasible ability to use either.

I'd be more than happy to take the local metra trains...if that didn't mean I'd have to go all the way downtown, get on a different train, and ride it all the way back because that's the only way to get from my home to my workplace via train.

I would take the bus...if the bus routes went that far.

Plenty of Americans use public transit, and for plenty more it's simply not a viable option.

You assume they have access or a feasible ability to use either.

Generally speaking, if mass transit is available in an area in the US, it's in use. If it isn't available, it isn't there for people to turn to.

To the OP: I want several minutes of my life back for reading and responding to your inane post.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D

Oh, this is a good one! You really believe the oil companies are gouging?! HAH!

No, good sir, that is not the case. In fact, prices had been kept artificially LOW and are now beyond the control of the oil companies to restrict, at least somewhat, due to the much higher demand that occurs around this time of year. It will only get worse, I assure you. Before too long we may be seeing $8 a gallon or so.

Actually, I could be overreacting. It could be its just the demand causing prices to spike rather than the oil companies being unable to keep them down anymore. But still, either way, it's demand that's sending them up, not the bloody oil companies.

With gas prices on the rise again, more people in America may have to turn to public transportation or bikes.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.

On second thought, support alternative energy sources, so we're no longer dependent on them. That would solve a lot of our problem, and make America more self sufficient again.

Nothing will make me take MARTA again. Not even if gas got to $10 a gallon.

I'm counting my blessings, as I don't own a car.

I like seeing gas prices rise because it gives me hope that there will be fewer enormous vehicles on the road, so I will be able to see the traffic in front of me. Or perhaps people will start using the public transit and there won't be as much traffic, that would be nice.

Acually everyone should ride motercycles.:cool:

Acually everyone should ride motercycles.:cool:

I don't entirely disagree...I've long desired a motorcycle of German or Japanese make, and upon graduation, I might opt for one in favor of an automobile.

Oh, like price freezes actually work...

Or people don't already take mass transit...

*looks at my Metro Smartrip card* (just like the Oyster Card in London)

http://www.wmata.com/riding/smartrip.cfm#combo

God bless Metrocheks man, God bless Metrocheks.

With the hours I work, mass trans is not feasible as much of it shuts down.

I would love to bike but it's too far.

God bless Metrocheks man, God bless Metrocheks.

Yes indeed. Having your employer pay for your commute if you take Metro is very nice.

I like seeing gas prices rise because it gives me hope that there will be fewer enormous vehicles on the road, so I will be able to see the traffic in front of me. Or perhaps people will start using the public transit and there won't be as much traffic, that would be nice.

Those with the enormous vehicles can afford the costs......

I don't entirely disagree...I've long desired a motorcycle of German or Japanese make, and upon graduation, I might opt for one in favor of an automobile.

Motorcycles are better than cars in every way I can think of with the execption of how many people you can transport.:cool:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D

Oh, this is a good one! You really believe the oil companies are gouging?! HAH!

No, good sir, that is not the case. In fact, prices had been kept artificially LOW and are now beyond the control of the oil companies to restrict, at least somewhat, due to the much higher demand that occurs around this time of year. It will only get worse, I assure you. Before too long we may be seeing $8 a gallon or so.

Actually, I could be overreacting. It could be its just the demand causing prices to spike rather than the oil companies being unable to keep them down anymore. But still, either way, it's demand that's sending them up, not the bloody oil companies.

You are partially right here, demand is driving this, but so is supply. In April, the U.S. refineries were operating at only 89% which is the lowest production we have had in over a year. The main cause of this was the extremely high prices last year during this time. Many companies avoided maintenance schedules in an effort to ease prices last year and take advantage of the record high prices.

This had a very unfortunate side effect. By ignoring their maintenance schedules the companies had to eventually shutdown the refineries in an effort to make necessary repairs. This caused the decrease in supply and therefore translated into higher costs.

There is higher demand as China has drastically increased its own demand for oil, but that really doesn't account all of the current record highs. Largely, this problem is caused because most of the U.S. refineries are operating consistently at or near capacity and no new refineries have been built in the US for nearly a decade or more. This means that even if we had an abundance of oil coming into the country we still couldn't process it fast enough the keep up with our growing thirst.

Bottom line is if you really want to help decrease our energy costs, stop using so much energy.

On a personal note, I think Americans need to be paying 15 or 20 dollar a gallon for gas. That would definatley drive the transition to alternative fuels.

Also as a side note, not that I want to turn this into a political debate, would affect President Bush's historical image. After all, he has been an out spoken proponent of alternative fuels, and has attempted to provide more funding to alternative fuels research than any of his predecessors.

With the hours I work, mass trans is not feasible as much of it shuts down.

I would love to bike but it's too far.
Exactly. The city I live near, one of the biggest in this pissant state, has minuscule mass transit. I think there are maybe two buses and they only run in the city and to the airport, maybe. And most people live in the massive amounts of suburbs so biking isn't feasible. And it isn't even feasible for people who live in the city because all the sections where people actually work are not particularly close to residential areas.

Motorcycles are better than cars in every way I can think of with the execption of how many people you can transport.:cool:

They are also far more dangerous. I know people that work in the Neurotrauma ICU at a major hospital in Houston, they have far more people in there from motorcycle accidents than they do from automobile accidents, and most of them end up in a persistant vegitative state.

Exactly. The city I live near, one of the biggest in this pissant state, has minuscule mass transit. I think there are maybe two buses and they only run in the city and to the airport, maybe. And most people live in the massive amounts of suburbs so biking isn't feasible. And it isn't even feasible for people who live in the city because all the sections where people actually work are not particularly close to residential areas.

You would probably like Herndon.

It's bike and bike path Central. And the town is rather nicely designed with residential, commercial, and office space tightly mixed.

They are also far more dangerous. I know people that work in the Neurotrauma ICU at a major hospital in Houston, they have far more people in there from motorcycle accidents than they do from automobile accidents, and most of them end up in a persistant vegitative state.

That is true, if you ride a motorcycle, you will fall, no if's ands or butts

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.

What do you think price ceilings will achieve? I'll give you a hint: it won't cause surpluses.

Exactly. The city I live near, one of the biggest in this pissant state, has minuscule mass transit. I think there are maybe two buses and they only run in the city and to the airport, maybe. And most people live in the massive amounts of suburbs so biking isn't feasible. And it isn't even feasible for people who live in the city because all the sections where people actually work are not particularly close to residential areas.

Wait. You wouldn't like Herndon.

It's the only place where I've seen people on bikes wearing pistols.

With gas prices on the rise again, more people in America may have to turn to public transportation or bikes.
public transportation is inadequate here, and we have no bike lanes, guess more people in my area will walk, or carpool, or stay home.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.
or they could stop charging so much in gas tax for a bit.

On second thought, support alternative energy sources, so we're no longer dependent on them. That would solve a lot of our problem, and make America more self sufficient again.
I like that idea, when are they going to come up with a good one?

BTW
Toyota research engineers says the Second generation of Hybrids is almost ready..
They will be more eficient.
and less expensive to build.

Some Lexus and Highlanders are planned.
I dont have a link btw

The government has no right to tell a company how much they can charge for a service or product. There is no right to cheap gasoline. The seller has the right to charge whatever he wants. And you, the consumer, have the right to buy it or not buy it.

Funny: I hear a lot of people who are convinced that the government should step in and do something about global warming. These are the same people who are convinced that oil companies are committing some (undefinable) act known as "price gouging." They want the government to freeze gas prices so that more people will buy more gas, drive more, and supposedly contribute to global warming? Hilarious!

Yeah, they're on the way up here, too.

Media reports are saying we might hit $1.50/litre.

Does the calculation...

1 gallon = 3.7854123 litres

Therefore

$1.50 x 3.7854123 = $5.678118/gal in local currency...

Doing the conversion:

US$4.6663/gallon

Motorcycles are better than cars in every way I can think of with the execption of how many people you can transport.:cool:


Motorcycles suck in foul weather.

Mass transit just isnt practical for most people in the US.
Australians probably have a good idea why most people do not use mass transit while Europeans think it is just such a simple solution.
We simply are too spread out for most people to use mass transit.

That being said, there are a lot of opportunities for better mass transit. In my case there is actually a bus that is just a short drive away and has a stop within walking distance of one of the offices where I work. This would be a fabulous thing except in the evening the last bus leaves that stop at 6:20 while I generally work until after 6. I could try to get out a little early but there will be times when I will miss the bus and be stranded in downtown DC.

It is simply not worth the risk of missing that last bus.
And then what happens if I want to hit happy hour with a few friends?

Until the transit system becomes sufficiently robust for people to use without making major changes to their lives (move downtown, give up on social life, whatever), driving will still be a popular choice until gas become ludicrously expensive.

$3/gal is still pretty cheap - just the cost of a beer at the bar.

$3/gal is still pretty cheap - just the cost of a beer at the bar.

I think I'd rather have 17 beers at the bar than spending the same amount to fill up a gas tank.

Generally speaking, if mass transit is available in an area in the US, it's in use. If it isn't available, it isn't there for people to turn to.

To the OP: I want several minutes of my life back for reading and responding to your inane post.

By being on NSG you've forfeited any life you may have previosly had. The two are incompatible.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.


Yeah I agree. Oil companies make an insane amount of money.

A multitude of factors can affect an individual oil company's profit on gasoline sales. However, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that when the average price of unleaded regular peaked at about $3 a gallon in the middle of 2006, major companies were making a profit of about 10 cents a gallon...


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

There's no way in hell I'll ever believe any of these oil companies only make $0.10 per gallon in profits. My guess is it's a case of people fudging numbers. I'll never buy that slim profit margin.

Near here, petrol cost about 94p per litre last time I looked. I make that about £3.56, or a few pence over US$7, per US gallon.

There are a lot of people in the UK who'd kill for petrol at US$3 per US gallon (40p per litre), I think :)

I've also heard gas prices were going to increase, but they were 10 cents cheaper this morning than last night. Odd.

Near here, petrol cost about 94p per litre last time I looked. I make that about £3.56, or a few pence over US$7, per US gallon.

There are a lot of people in the UK who'd kill for petrol at US$3 per US gallon (40p per litre), I think :)

That's terrible, and due almost entirely to tax, I'd think. The more I hear about Europe, the more it seems like things are structured to keep the little guy from breaking into the middle class, especially with housing over there.

It really isn't THAT much higher. Look at the UK, they're paying twice what we are, and they respond accordingly.

Mass transit just isnt practical for most people in the US.
Australians probably have a good idea why most people do not use mass transit while Europeans think it is just such a simple solution.
We simply are too spread out for most people to use mass transit.

That being said, there are a lot of opportunities for better mass transit. In my case there is actually a bus that is just a short drive away and has a stop within walking distance of one of the offices where I work. This would be a fabulous thing except in the evening the last bus leaves that stop at 6:20 while I generally work until after 6. I could try to get out a little early but there will be times when I will miss the bus and be stranded in downtown DC.

It is simply not worth the risk of missing that last bus.
And then what happens if I want to hit happy hour with a few friends?

Until the transit system becomes sufficiently robust for people to use without making major changes to their lives (move downtown, give up on social life, whatever), driving will still be a popular choice until gas become ludicrously expensive.

$3/gal is still pretty cheap - just the cost of a beer at the bar.

The main reason that many folks don't use PT here is due to its unreliability... But it's still quite heavily used.

Sydney's CityRail, despite being plagued with reliability issues over the past few years, carries roughly 1 million passengers daily. In addition (mind, it does cover areas up to around 200km from Sydney by track distance). The most intensely used line in the system is the Illawarra/Eastern Suburbs Line, which carries around 130,000 passengers per day alone - not too far shy of the number of vehicles that pass across the Harbour Bridge). The main flaw in the rail system is not enough capacity through the CBD (most of the traffic goes around the City Circle, which has no free train paths during peak. Because everything is running so close to the limit, when a train breaks down, it screws the whole network up (escept the Illawarra line, which is for the most part segretated from the rest of the mess, and could hypothetically be converted into a metro line.

I'd say the buses would carry another 250,000 and the ferries perhaps 70,000, the buik of the passenger loads being on the Manly ferry (which is very, very well used - with the views it offers, it's not hard to understand why people use it to commute).

That's a LOT of passengers for a city of only 4.2 million.

The whole system, right now, is pretty much in meltdown mode, the roads are becoming gridlocked, the rail system is struggling to carry the passenger loads it's recieving, and the buses are (as usual) getting caught up in the traffic - and the ferries have been rather problematic the past few years.

That's terrible, and due almost entirely to tax, I'd think. The more I hear about Europe, the more it seems like things are structured to keep the little guy from breaking into the middle class, especially with housing over there.

Last time I worked it out (ages ago) it was about two-thirds tax. There were petrol protests about it a few years ago (they were wonderful; London was so much quieter!), but eventually threats were made and they dispersed.

The other bit... I can't think of anything meaningful/coherent to say. It's bedtime.

Near here, petrol cost about 94p per litre last time I looked. I make that about £3.56, or a few pence over US$7, per US gallon.

There are a lot of people in the UK who'd kill for petrol at US$3 per US gallon (40p per litre), I think :)

How much of that is tax?

Ours is not taxed that much.....

My parents said that when I get a car, I have to pay for my own gas... by getting a job.

Looks like I'll be having to spend much of my paycheck on gas... :(

At the OP: I live out in Nowhere, North Carolina. It's a 30-45 minute drive ANYWHERE, even to school. Do you seriously think I could ride a bike, walk, or use public transport?

Alternative energy, however...

Americans need to drive less and buy more efficient vehicles, and we need to develop alternative energy sources to reduce our oil consumption. There's no gouging going on, just the effects of our own decisions being reflected in market prices. Americans continue to drive more than ever, and we continue to consume more oil than ever, and as more countries begin to consume oil, prices go up.

All of this is being reflected in the price of gasoline; oil companies are working as hard as they can to develop new resources, but all the crude oil in the world isn't going to do a damn thing if we don't build new refineries to produce it. Americans have this NIMBY attitude towards refineries, stonewall the hell out of their construction and expansion, and then are puzzled when overworked, old refineries are breaking down and prices are soaring. I'm continually baffled that Americans claim to be so gung-ho about the free market but manage to be so mind-bogglingly stupid when it comes to actually understanding how it works.

But in all honesty, most Americans still aren't affected by these prices. What concerns me are the people that are affected are being ignored and so their real problems aren't being heard over the whinings of suburbanites who were too stupid to buy a fuel efficient vehicle despite the fact that gas prices have been rising steadily for the past 8 years and anyone with half a brain would know they were still going higher.

A steady climb in the price of oil is unavoidable at this point, and people will naturally begin to make their own personal choices as to what benefits them most. When it becomes more expensive to commute than to work locally for example, or having one family vehicle instead of two. Minor changes will happen first, although if this trend continues, the next decade will most likely be filled with strikes and demonstrations from the transportation industry.

What seems like a small adjustment for the average person, is a major cost to truck drivers and transportation companies. The growing trend for freight companies is to pass the cost of fuel on to the drivers, and as the cost of fuel increases, you will see more and more frustrated drivers involved in protests, or simply abandoning the industry all together. Companies will have to pass off those costs to consumers in the form of increased pricing on all goods. Quite possibly, this may encourage local business, and put the brakes on a growing international economy. (But I think I'm getting ahead of myself on that one.) These increased strikes, roadblocks and traffic snarls will definitely be noticed, as will the increased cost of living.

Reducing one's fuel consumption is only a matter of time, regardless of government intervention in the setting of price.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D

Oh, this is a good one! You really believe the oil companies are gouging?! HAH!

No, good sir, that is not the case. In fact, prices had been kept artificially LOW and are now beyond the control of the oil companies to restrict, at least somewhat, due to the much higher demand that occurs around this time of year. It will only get worse, I assure you. Before too long we may be seeing $8 a gallon or so.

Actually, I could be overreacting. It could be its just the demand causing prices to spike rather than the oil companies being unable to keep them down anymore. But still, either way, it's demand that's sending them up, not the bloody oil companies.


There is only a hint of legitimacy to your post. Demand is high and refininery capacity is down because oil companies have not invested in the infrastructure they needs to refine fuels. Gas is now higher than during the crsis of 1981 so please explain how this is possible. Please also explain how every single quarter for the last five years how oil companies are posting new record quarters every single quarter. EVERY SINGLE QUARTER! Couple that with 40 million dollar bonuses to their execs and if it smells like shit you better check the baby's diapers.

. Demand is high and refininery capacity is down because oil companies have not invested in the infrastructure they needs to refine fuels. .

No, it's because every time a refinery wants to build or expand their facilities, they get a bunch of shit because people don't want the company building a refinery near their town. As a matter of fact, the one new refinery in the country under development, in Arizona, has been in the works for 10 years and have spent nearly $3 billion dollars and they haven't even been able to break ground yet thanks to all the legal and bureaucratic hassles.

People bitch about gas prices and yet don't want to build the infrastructure to solve the problem. Refiners would love to slap up new refineries since their business makes its money on volume rather than prices, but they can't do it because nobody wants to put a refinery in their community. In fact, the US market is swimming in crude oil right now but it can't do anything with it because of shortages in refining capacity.

You can't have it both ways. Either allow them to build more refineries, or use less...there's no other way prices will go down.

Also as a side note, not that I want to turn this into a political debate, would affect President Bush's historical image. After all, he has been an out spoken proponent of alternative fuels, and has attempted to provide more funding to alternative fuels research than any of his predecessors.

Problem with Bush is that he seems to be mainly backing hydrogen, which doesn't really sound feasible to me. The idea is to use excess electricity capacity during the night (off-peak hours) to make hydrogen to run cars on. Problem is that you'd have to reboot all the gas stations and cars first, and you'd still have to find a way to get the electricity to make the hydrogen.

Two technologies I like much better:

I saw an article in American Scientist where a guy was talking about making hybrid cars that can run for the first 50 miles off the batteries, and kick on the engine only after that. Since most people, most of the time, only drive 50 miles or less during the day, we'd be almost always be running off the battery. But it beats the straight-up electric car because if you need the range, it's there. The cars get charged up during the night (off peak hours), just using a wall outlet. This means that you have the same effect as hydrogen (without rebooting our gas stations). Power plants are cleaner burning than cars, and it would make the power plants a bit more efficient, since they're not as efficient idling during the off hours as they are at peak capacity.

The guy said that he already had a proof-of-concept car going, and that we could have these in three years - if the @#$% auto industry got its ass in gear.

The other technology is thermo-depolyermerization. Throw anything organic in, get out a fuel that can be run in a power plant. Distill it, and you get gasoline and diesel. No net carbon release, since the carbon is already in the ecosystem. It's already being used on turkey guts from a Butterball plant. (Turkey guts aren't good for anything else, really.) It'd catch on better, but America is still feeding animal parts back to the animals, which is somewhat unsafe. (Mad Cow Disease, anybody?) This means that they're having to buy feedstock that they were planning on getting for free, so the company that does it is looking towards Europe, which has outlawed animal cannibalism.

It'd take some tweaking, but the process could be used on human sewage. We (the US) import 42 billion barrels of crude. With just good old American feces, we could produce the equivalent of 40 billion barrels. The money would stay at home, out of the pockets of the House of Saud, there would be less shit around, and it would be good for the environment.

There's no way in hell I'll ever believe any of these oil companies only make $0.10 per gallon in profits. My guess is it's a case of people fudging numbers. I'll never buy that slim profit margin.

That'd be about 3.3% profit at the pump. The restaurant I work at makes 5% profit. That actually sounds about right. The gas stations are really competitive, one lowers their price, all the others follow suite. I suspect the money makers with the stations is the snacks and drinks. If the gas companies are really making a big profit, I would guess it would be in the refining (since the refineries are over-booked, it's a seller's market) and in the extraction (windfall profits for American crude suppliers from OPEC yanking the leash). I suspect the gas stations themselves really are that low margin.

You're both ignoring the effect of government subsidies on oil and gas prices. That's a bigger factor than either refining capacity or NIMBYism or any of the others.

You're both ignoring the effect of government subsidies on oil and gas prices. That's a bigger factor than either refining capacity or NIMBYism or any of the others.

And the hundreds of billions spent deploying our navy in the Persian gulf has a lot bigger effect than the other two combined. Maybe if we shifted the money collected on income tax to gasoline taxes, people would have a better idea of just where their money is going.

If you add the cost of protecting oil to the price we pay, it would be easily upwards of $10/gallon.

On a personal note, I think Americans need to be paying 15 or 20 dollar a gallon for gas. That would definatley drive the transition to alternative fuels.
No it'd simply shutdown the country. No one would go anywhere, NOTHING would be done, the country would collapse. That kind of ruins any "Alternative fuels" research. Because when the US economy goes dead, other countries go dead, and it's the Domino effect as we all hit a worldwide great Depression.

15$ to 20$ is the end of the world as we know it.

*snip*
Take your lazie-fair capitalism and shove it.

With gas prices on the rise again, more people in America may have to turn to public transportation or bikes.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.

On second thought, support alternative energy sources, so we're no longer dependent on them. That would solve a lot of our problem, and make America more self sufficient again.
Start by nationalizing the oil companies!! :)

Start by nationalizing the oil companies!! :)

Tried it in Mexico...now their oil production is collapsing due to underinvestment and poor management.

Tried it in Mexico...now their oil production is collapsing due to underinvestment and poor management.
It can and has been done successfully!! :)

It can and has been done successfully!! :)

When?

Even most state-owned companies use private firms to do the work for them; companies like Aramco are usually just clearinghouses for private firms to come in and do the work, and then give them their share of the revenue.

Oh, like price freezes actually work...

Or people don't already take mass transit...

*looks at my Metro Smartrip card* (just like the Oyster Card in London)

http://www.wmata.com/riding/smartrip.cfm#combo

I'm thinking how clever I am to detect where you're Observing from ...

then you give us a link. :mad: :headbang:

With gas prices on the rise again, more people in America may have to turn to public transportation or bikes.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.

On second thought, support alternative energy sources, so we're no longer dependent on them. That would solve a lot of our problem, and make America more self sufficient again.

And Ill still have to drive my truck and bite the bullet (my car when I can)

There's no way in hell I'll ever believe any of these oil companies only make $0.10 per gallon in profits. My guess is it's a case of people fudging numbers. I'll never buy that slim profit margin.

The US consumes 139.50 billion gallons of gasoline each year. If the oil industry makes about $0.10 per gallon on average, that works out to $13.50 billion in profits off of gasoline each year in the US alone.

Oil companies make profit on volume, not on profit per unit.

Alternative energy is a great opportunity for the US to actually lead the world at something.

I mean, taking a great wodge of taxpayer money and spending it on something which might not work but would have terrific spinoffs even so. Which if it worked, would simultaneously ace global warming, dependence on the Middle East for the stability of our economies, and the growing need for energy?

Have we forgotten Apollo already? No.

Did the Apollo Program fix environmental problems? Did it yield scientific knowledge about the moon which couldn't have been gotten far cheaper? Was it the first step in humanity leaving the cradle of Earth?

No.

Was it worth doing? I say yes.

So there you have the baseline of success for a grand US Government initiative. Anything above that is a bonus.

If the US govt were to throw a trillion dollars at (1)fusion power, (2)cheap solar cells, or (3) perpetual-motion machines, it would be money well spent.

Where would the money come from?
*looks at elephant in room*

Oh, and I'll add that while retrofitting cars trucks and tractors with electric power is probably impractical, with a cheap enough source of electricity it would be possible to manufacture fuel which would work in existing engines, without carbon emissions, and without destroying any industry but the oil industry.

Oh, and I'll add that while retrofitting cars trucks and tractors with electric power is probably impractical, with a cheap enough source of electricity it would be possible to manufacture fuel which would work in existing engines, without carbon emissions, and without destroying any industry but the oil industry.

Nuclear and coal are two good ones. Renewables are cheap too, if a little unreliable at times, but if they're mixed with nuclear and coal, you'd have a gigantic source of energy that could be used for whatever you need. Plus, the renewables could be put on houses in the form of solar and geothermal, cutting down on the need for electricity for households and offsetting some of the emissions from the coal plants.

You could do this:

Run existing engines on domestically produced oil, cellulosic and algae biofuels, and synthetic fuels from coal and natural gas, and then gradually convert the fleet over to hybrids and eventually electric as people replace their old conventional engines with new hybrid and eventually electric ones. The coal, renewables and nuclear would produce plenty of power to run the vehicles both before and after conversion to electric power.

Natural gas would be good, too, but it is better for heating than for electricity.

Nuclear and coal are two good ones.

I disagree. They both suck badly in ways I should not have to point out to you. You know better.

Renewables are cheap too

The renewables we have are cheap, because otherwise we would not have them. They also suck, as you go on to mention.

What I'm saying is: throw insane amounts of money at the research in the hope of a breakthrough. After the breakthrough, no more nuclear waste or global warming to be bargained against the energy-independence or economy-burdening benefits. Just buttloads of power without a downside.

Surely it's worth a try? We went to the moon for no good reason and at great cost, and we all feel good about that. Why not do the same for something of vital importance to us all?

, if a little unreliable at times, but if they're mixed with nuclear and coal, you'd have a gigantic source of energy that could be used for whatever you need. Plus, the renewables could be put on houses in the form of solar and geothermal, cutting down on the need for electricity for households and offsetting some of the emissions from the coal plants.

That's one of my secondary goals, yeah. The idea of every household, every business having it's own power source which it must invest in to have power. A sort of devolution from the "I don't ask questions where it came from, I just pay the power bill" model which has brought us nuclear power, among other horrors.

You could do this:

Run existing engines on domestically produced oil, cellulosic and algae biofuels, and synthetic fuels from coal and natural gas, and then gradually convert the fleet over to hybrids and eventually electric as people replace their old conventional engines with new hybrid and eventually electric ones. The coal, renewables and nuclear would produce plenty of power to run the vehicles both before and after conversion to electric power.

Assuming no explosive growth in power usage when the new sources are introduced, yes. Otherwise, I like the cut of your jib.

Natural gas would be good, too, but it is better for heating than for electricity.

I'm a fan of gas too. In the existing regime. Bring fusion power, and the stuff can stay in the ground.

EDIT: Did I answer too quickly I ask myself. You made a point about obsoleting oil which I think I missed in my haste. The unreliable sources Wind and Solar can be used to create synthetic fuels without having to do that annoying Baseload thing. You were quite right there.

With gas prices on the rise again, more people in America may have to turn to public transportation or bikes.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.

On second thought, support alternative energy sources, so we're no longer dependent on them. That would solve a lot of our problem, and make America more self sufficient again.

Ok your second thought, no on the first. Here in Italy we pay gas about 1,3 €/litre, far more than in the USA - I don't think that the americans couldn't afford paying that much. Maybe, the USA car industries could produce more fuel-efficient motors even for the internal market.
I don't see what's the problem with rising oil prices, even with taxes, to get more funds to be spent in the public transportation/infrastructure sector or in the research for alternative energy.
Also, having more people going to work on public transportation or bikes or walking has some beneficial effects:
1.Less pollution (chemical, acoustic and thermal)
2.Lesser risk of car crashes (expensive in terms of assurances, medical care and personal stress)
3.Lesser need for new road infractructures, hence less consuption of the territory
4.More interest for public transportation, both from national/local government and private companies

*snip*
4.More interest for public transportation, both from national/local government and private companies

Excellent.

May I just suggest saying "investment" instead of "interest" in that last sentence. "Interest" means something other than "concern for, care about, and investment in" to a lot of folks here.

/snarky

I disagree. They both suck badly in ways I should not have to point out to you. You know better.Nuclear power is by far the best option to large scale electricity proudction: It's clean, it's safe, it's longterm (nuclear fuels ARE not going to run out*) and it produces marginal amount of waste.

While it's true that the amount of waste depends a bit on the reactor type, in older reactor models (those around today) the amount of waste produced is around one cubic meter per annum per plant or ~20 tonnes/year, for comparison a coal plant produces 1,000 tons of waste every day.

Chernobyl happened in -86 and was a direct cause of death for less than 100 people - Every day more people die because of fossil fuels.

Also, as a point of interest the biggest source of radioactive waste isn't civilian nuclear industry but fossil sources: natural gas, oil & coal.**

*
Wiki: It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years worth of Uranium-238 for use in these power plants

**
Wiki: For instance over the past 20 years it is estimated, that just the oil-producing endeavors of the US have accumulated 8 million tons of radioactive wastes

Excellent.

May I just suggest saying "investment" instead of "interest" in that last sentence. "Interest" means something other than "concern for, care about, and investment in" to a lot of folks here.

/snarky

Yes, of course. I meant it in both meanings: investing money in p.t. and caring about it.

And, may I add:
5.Walking and biking is a good way to fight obesity and keep people fit - hence, less risk of heart diseases.

Nuclear power is by far the best option to large scale electricity proudction: It's clean, it's safe, it's longterm (nuclear fuels ARE not going to run out*) and it produces marginal amount of waste.

While it's true that the amount of waste depends a bit on the reactor type, in older reactor models (those around today) the amount of waste produced is around one cubic meter per annum per plant or ~20 tonnes/year, for comparison a coal plant produces 1,000 tons of waste every day.

Chernobyl happened in -86 and was a direct cause of death for less than 100 people - Every day more people die because of fossil fuels.

Also, as a point of interest the biggest source of radioactive waste isn't civilian nuclear industry but fossil sources: natural gas, oil & coal.**



Totally agreed.

Plus:

1.A chain of different types of reactors (standard -> fast breeder -> subcritical) allows to extract a lot more energy from radioactive elements (not just uranium, but also from thorium) and to lessen the radioactivity of the final byproducts.

2.Even if we refuse the official WHO figures for the Chernobyl deaths,


The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9,000 people among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer. Specifically, the report cited 4000 thyroid cancer cases among children diagnosed by 2002.[2]


and rise them significantly - let's say by 10, to 560 direct deaths and 90000 possible deaths in more than 20 years - it's still a lot less than the deaths and loss of life expectancy every year in the EU because of air pollution, whose main components are chemical byproducts of the combustion of fossile fuels, be it for energy production or for transportation.
This fact hints that fission power is anyway safer for human health than fossile fuels.



By the way, there are significant inaccuracies in the wiki article about the Chernobyl disaster. It wasn't a "meltdown" because the reactor didn't melt - if it had, the outcome would have been very likely less severe. The problem was that the reactor still worked at full power after the explosion, but without any shielding to screen the atmosphere from the radiation and the dispersion of radioactive elements. It was very likely a syngas explosion.


Syngas consists primarily of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and has less than half the energy density of natural gas. Syngas is combustible and often used as a fuel source or as an intermediate for the production of other chemicals. Syngas for use as a fuel is most often produced by gasification of coal or municipal waste mainly by the following paths:

C + O2 → CO2
CO2 + C → 2CO
C + H2O → CO + H2


The moderator cadmium bars were covered in graphite (that is, carbon). When the reactor (water-cooled) got superheated, the cadmium acted as catalyser for the C + H2O → CO + H2 reaction. Subsequently, the H2 gas led to the explosion that blasted the reactor shielding away.


Also, one should never forget that coal is somewhat radioactive. Coal has often uranium impurities (even 9 ppm, like the coal Italy buys from the Czech Republic). This uranium (and the other radioactive elements) gets dispersed when the coal is transported on the trains (coal dust) and when the coal is burned and its smokes are left in the atmosphere.
Burning uranium inside a reactor is better than having it going aroung in plumes of hot smoke.

At the OP: I live out in Nowhere, North Carolina. It's a 30-45 minute drive ANYWHERE, even to school. Do you seriously think I could ride a bike, walk, or use public transport?

People on NSG don't care about that. Most of them look at whatever metropolis/largish city they live in and just assume that everyone else lives similarly.

However, I must say that I do love public transit. In the city I live in (Angers, France with about 280,000 people) the bus system goes just about everywhere for a decent price. Also, I just spent the last four days in Paris and I think half of that time was spent in the metro. While these things work in places with such a high population density they don't work as well in the less densely populated areas of North America.

The US consumes 139.50 billion gallons of gasoline each year. If the oil industry makes about $0.10 per gallon on average, that works out to $13.50 billion in profits off of gasoline each year in the US alone.

Oil companies make profit on volume, not on profit per unit.

The problem is that one company, Exxon makes 10.7 billion is a quarter. That's 42.8 billion a year. That's just one company. It doesn't include Texaco, Conaco Phillips, and many others. Even with your number of 13.5 billion a year they are making quadruple that from one company. Combine that with the rest of the companies worldwide and.... you do the math.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/fasworldwide/2006/09-2006/ChinaBiofuels.htm

Also, having more people going to work on public transportation or bikes or walking has some beneficial effects:
1.Less pollution (chemical, acoustic and thermal)
2.Lesser risk of car crashes (expensive in terms of assurances, medical care and personal stress)
3.Lesser need for new road infractructures, hence less consuption of the territory
4.More interest for public transportation, both from national/local government and private companies

The problem is that America is pretty spread out. Public transportation is fine for city folk, but for rural areas or small towns, not so much. I live on the outskirts of a small college town. Busing doesn't seem practical because they wouldn't get enough business, aside from the school bus. I can't bike in because I'd risk getting creamed on the highway. If I walk, it takes me about an hour to get where I'm going. Right now, I'm driving in, parking, *then* biking to where I need to go. (At least that saves me the cost of a parking permit, plus I save gas on city driving.)

Some poster from Australia pointed out that they have (unreliable) public transport there. However, IIRC, most of the population there is on the east coast, pretty concentrated. Maybe public transport would work well on the coasts here in the States, but what about in the interior?

With gas prices on the rise again, more people in America may have to turn to public transportation or bikes.
If this were true then why is Metro Transit still not turning anything close to a profit? Srsly, it never has. No government run transit system does. AmTrak never has. Nobody rides the train anymore, haven't for a long time. So upon learning this astounding (that word isn't used enough) fact what does the city of Murderapolis do? They build a light rail line. That services only the city and surrounding municipalities. And they somehow are able to tap the state's transit fund for it.

Actually, the government should put a freeze on rising prices. The oil companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge people like that.
Because government interference in economics has always worked wonders. Why, just look at all the good it did northern Asia and eastern Europe during the mid to late 20th century.

On second thought, support alternative energy sources, so we're no longer dependent on them. That would solve a lot of our problem, and make America more self sufficient again.
Support alternative energy sources so we don't need to depend on alternative energy sources?

Like what? Wind? Kills protected birds, not reliable, doesn't even come close to meeting current demand, and they don't just pop out of the ground. Corn ethanol? An energy waster. Hydrogen? Again, an energy waster. Fusion? Show me a working reactor that produces more power than it consumes, then we'll talk. Solar? 6 ping pong tables worth of cells per car, even more for a house (though usually just 1 or 2 solar sterling engines).

There are really only 2 sources of cheap, reliable energy; fission and petrol. Each has an underserved stigma that has kept it from expanding to meet demand while the search for a more perminent solution goes on. It's true that each produces a waste product, be it CO2 or U238. Yet what goes unsaid is that both wastes are perfectly useable resources. CO2 just happens to be what the botanist perscribed for everything green under the sun and works wonders on greenhoused crops. U238 (which makes up just over 99% of all uranium) can be bombarded with neutrons to breed Pu239, a good fuel with a fair life expectancy in reactors and weapons alike.

If you want to do something then stop complaining at the pump or on these boards and complain to your reps about why they aren't pushing harder for an expansion of nuclear power and the recycling of fissile fuels.

Ok your second thought, no on the first. Here in Italy we pay gas about 1,3 €/litre, far more than in the USA - I don't think that the americans couldn't afford paying that much. Maybe, the USA car industries could produce more fuel-efficient motors even for the internal market.
I don't see what's the problem with rising oil prices, even with taxes, to get more funds to be spent in the public transportation/infrastructure sector or in the research for alternative energy.
Also, having more people going to work on public transportation or bikes or walking has some beneficial effects:
1.Less pollution (chemical, acoustic and thermal)
2.Lesser risk of car crashes (expensive in terms of assurances, medical care and personal stress)
3.Lesser need for new road infractructures, hence less consuption of the territory
4.More interest for public transportation, both from national/local government and private companies

The problem is that one company, Exxon makes 10.7 billion is a quarter. That's 42.8 billion a year. That's just one company. It doesn't include Texaco, Conaco Phillips, and many others. Even with your number of 13.5 billion a year they are making quadruple that from one company. Combine that with the rest of the companies worldwide and.... you do the math.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/fasworldwide/2006/09-2006/ChinaBiofuels.htm

I'd imagine that the profit is coming from refining and extraction, and selling the gas to the gas stations. Texaco, Conaco, etc. run their own refineries and oil rigs, but somehow I doubt Breaktime does.

I saw this thread and was thinking it was actually about gas...but it's Petrol!

You Americans don't know you are born with your cheap fuel prices!!!:headbang: Damn, I wish I only had to pay what you pay and some, it costs me so much much more than it does you guys. Fuel price is also a good way to prevent people buying those ludicrously large vehicles that use up so much fuel and make so much pollution. Also, I can't see why people who live in towns need to have 4x4's to take their kids to school and shop. I live in the country, and the people who drive 4x4's live on farms and ummmm drive off road....rant over :p

So, panic over for me, as gas prices are not going up! yippee!

Plus may I ask, what do people in America call gas? As in the stuff I cook and heat my home with, if you call petrol gas?

-rant snip-

So, panic over for me, as gas prices are not going up! yippee!

Plus may I ask, what do people in America call gas? As in the stuff I cook and heat my home with, if you call petrol gas?

We've been known to call it gas or gasoline.

Yes, we do it just to be different. :p

We've been known to call it gas or gasoline.

Yes, we do it just to be different. :p

So you call gas - gas and petrol - gas hmmmmmmm


It's like tomato and tomato all over again....

So you call gas - gas and petrol - gas hmmmmmmm


It's like tomato and tomato all over again....
Actually we call petrol gasoline and cooking gas natural gas, gas, or just the specific hydrocarbon it is, like propane.

Problem with Bush is that he seems to be mainly backing hydrogen, which doesn't really sound feasible to me.

That is because hydrogen is the most abundant resource on the planet, and is 100% renewable. And it is very feasible. There are a dozen companies that have developed technologies that breakdown the elements of oil, gasoline, and water to charge a hydrogen fuel cell. Most are extremely efficient; however extremely expensive to purchase. Also hydrogen is really the only fuel that is truly 100% environmentally friendly. Even dio-diesel produces carbon emissions when burned, so we are still contributing to Global Warming on a massive scale. By converting to hydrogen, you provide more ways to get your energy, as opposed to what we have now.

The idea is to use excess electricity capacity during the night (off-peak hours) to make hydrogen to run cars on. Problem is that you'd have to reboot all the gas stations and cars first, and you'd still have to find a way to get the electricity to make the hydrogen.

Yes, we would have to use excess electricity to create the hydrogen, several companies, included ExxonMobile, Royal Dutch/Shell, and ChevronTexaco have developed or are working with partners to develop technologies that do this, very efficiently.

“Rebooting” our fuel distribution system would actually be relatively easy, yet very expensive to do. You see, most technologies use existing hydrocarbons, like oil, and gasoline to produce hydrogen. All that would need to be done, is set up the gasoline stations to be the location that does the conversion and then provide a method or charging or replacing the fuel cell in automobiles. This would allow greater control over existing pollution, since it would be limited to smaller areas than our overall road network covers, and allow us to begin the slide toward eliminating our use of hydrocarbons all together.

Two technologies I like much better:

I saw an article in American Scientist where a guy was talking about making hybrid cars that can run for the first 50 miles off the batteries, and kick on the engine only after that. Since most people, most of the time, only drive 50 miles or less during the day, we'd be almost always be running off the battery. But it beats the straight-up electric car because if you need the range, it's there.

There are more factors than just range that limit the electric car, and I see some of those are being problems for this as well. There are limits on torque, and other things that limit electric card to relatively small vehicles, for a family of six an electric car just doesn’t fit everything they need for a weekend trip. Also consider a city like Houston, it is a commuter city, and is spread out across a couple hundred miles. Five million people like in the Greater Houston area, and on any typical business day a person could, and in many cases does, drive 80 to 90 miles one-way for work. Having a limit of 50 miles for the battery doesn’t really provide any benefit in such an instance. The people would end up using the gasoline engine everyday for 60 or more miles.

The cars get charged up during the night (off peak hours), just using a wall outlet.

There are technologies for hydrogen that use a water hose, and an electrical outlet to do the same thing.

This means that you have the same effect as hydrogen (without rebooting our gas stations).

Again, there is not need to “reboot” our fuel distribution network. This is a myth distributed by proponents of hybrid vehicles and other alternative fuels to bolster our need to use their instead of focusing on eliminating our production and use of hydrocarbons.

Power plants are cleaner burning than cars, and it would make the power plants a bit more efficient, since they're not as efficient idling during the off hours as they are at peak capacity.

Transitioning to hydrogen would have the same affect.

The guy said that he already had a proof-of-concept car going, and that we could have these in three years - if the @#$% auto industry got its ass in gear.

This is the same problem that Hydrogen fuel celled vehicles are experiencing. Shell is working with Greenland to expand their hydrogen distribution system and transition to a Hydrogen-based economy, but is running into difficulties with automobile manufacturers being reluctant to release the fuel-cell automobiles until other major countries make the transition. In most major industrialized nations, there is opposition to complete hydrogen cutover, from those that feel we should focus more attention transitional technologies like hybrids instead of preparing ourselves for a hydrogen economy now.

The other technology is thermo-depolyermerization. Throw anything organic in; get out a fuel that can be run in a power plant. Distill it, and you get gasoline and diesel. No net carbon release, since the carbon is already in the ecosystem.

However this is an extreme difference. Our ecosystem is very balanced; it can handle a specific amount of carbon entering it at a time. When biomaterial is broken down the decomposition rate is relatively unchanged. Meaning a decomposing body of a specific size is always going to take the same amount of time be consumed by our ecosystem. By converting biomaterial into gasoline and diesel, we introduce the carbon into the ecosystem more quickly than a decomposing body would and in effect continue to contribute to the problems that using hydrocarbons introduces.

It'd take some tweaking, but the process could be used on human sewage. We (the US) import 42 billion barrels of crude. With just good old American feces, we could produce the equivalent of 40 billion barrels. The money would stay at home, out of the pockets of the House of Saud, there would be less shit around, and it would be good for the environment.

While the technology sounds promising, and tremendously beneficial, by using our waste instead of dumping it, it still continues the cycle of pollution as I stated above.



That'd be about 3.3% profit at the pump. The restaurant I work at makes 5% profit. That actually sounds about right. The gas stations are really competitive, one lowers their price, all the others follow suite. I suspect the moneymakers with the stations are the snacks and drinks. If the gas companies are really making a big profit, I would guess it would be in the refining (since the refineries are over-booked, it's a seller's market) and in the extraction (windfall profits for American crude suppliers from OPEC yanking the leash). I suspect the gas stations themselves really are that low margin.

Gasoline is a moneymaker in and of itself, the snacks and crap bonus, though I am in IT not Sales so I really can’t say how much margin there is in the gasoline sales. I do know that most Energy Companies make most of their money in buying and selling energy and fuels.

My point is, that focusing on hydrogen now, is a smart choice. While using transitional technologies is a good idea, we need to focus on a long-term solution, and begin the process of moving in that direction. Hydrogen is the solution to global warming and can lead to energy independence. The trick is to convince businesses and citizens that we need to start looking in that direction, and invest money in that transition.

No it'd simply shutdown the country. No one would go anywhere, NOTHING would be done, the country would collapse.

I find that hard to believe. Two years ago we were paying less than 2$ a gallon, today we are at or above 3$. Americans are still driving just as much as there were, and the economy hasn't shut down. Most EU countries are paying 7 - 10 dollars and American gallon already, so the US is still quite lucky on that respect.

That kind of ruins any "Alternative fuels" research. Because when the US economy goes dead, other countries go dead, and it's the Domino effect as we all hit a worldwide great Depression.

Yes, the collapse of our economy would and it would drag other countries with us, but that wasn't my point. Maybe I did over exagerate it a bit, but I am trying to point out is that the only way to get the American people to react and actually insist and make changes is to hit them in the pocketbook, and to hit it hard. Until that happens the majority of Americans are not going to care whether we use hydrocarbons, bio-fuels or hydrogen.

It can and has been done successfully!! :)

When?

Even most state-owned companies use private firms to do the work for them; companies like Aramco are usually just clearinghouses for private firms to come in and do the work, and then give them their share of the revenue.

I was looking forward to seeing the answer to that...Especially in light of the latest move by the US House to hinder market forces.