What the HELL is UP with the GAS PRICES!?!?! Can anyone CLARIFY FOR ME WHY the HELL I have to pay 2.39 A FRIGGIN GALLON for 87 octane!?!?!?!? I'm SERIOUSLY considering selling my car (88 Nissan 300ZX...thank God it's not a Turbo...premium gas is 2.60 here!!!) buying a motorcycle for around town driving...just steal my girlfriend's jeep for long distance driving. ANYONE know what the hell is going on with this bullshit or when it will stop or who I can bitch at...at least I'll feel a little better...lol...

hmmm, allow me to see if i can shed some light on the situation.

the supply of readily available, cheaply accesable oil is fast dwindling. disregarding the complicated political manuvering and military assault in the middle east, its becoming a simple matter of supply and demand.

combine the ever increasing number of cars on american roads (and at least in texas the vast majority of those are gas guzzling V-8's in ridiculously large trucks and SUV's) with the ever increasing cosnumer base in both india and China, and the dwindling supply, and you get rising prices.

if you'd really like to get scared, start researching peak oil. the question is no longer if, but when.

yeah its rediculous, its 2.23 for unleaded and like 2.43 for premium here in Tulsa, i dont pay attention to the price, i just put gas in my truck, and dont worry about it

I think that most of us, certainly our children, will see the day when there's just no more oil. I'm not sure, but I think there's only about 50 years or so left until the reserves dry up.

bleh, gas prices dont really bother me(and i drive a V8 lol)... i used to be into nitro rc cars... THAT gas was expensive... $25 for a gallon.

Those of you who say you don't pay attention obviously have money. lol

I understand how supply and demand works, but I can't help but think there's some political bullshit at work. I HATE politics...I hate politicians...I hate all of it...greedy fuckers. MAKE GAS REASONABLE AGAIN, ASS HOLES!

lol i work at sonic for $6 an hour. i have no money :grinno:

but i agree about politicians sucking.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/flatlander757/Misc/repub1.jpg

cheaply accesable oil is fast dwindling. disregarding the complicated political manuvering and military assault in the middle east, its becoming a simple matter of supply and demand.

Actually its not so much an issue of a shortage of crude as it is a matter or refining enough of it. Its simple, gas refineries have a summer and a winter formula that they use. This year they havn't made enough of their summer formula and from that comes the high gas prices.

What sucks is around me its $2.55 for 87 octane.

It's been this way for years, the oil companies ALWAYS jack up the prices in the summer. Other trends to look for: raising prices for whatever "crisis" reason they can come up with (hurricane, flood, tanker stuck on a sandbar, Iraq). But once the crisis goes away, it takes over 6 months for the price to go back down to where it was, oil companies say it takes time to "recover". Yeah, whatever.

I agree that the oil is beginning to run out and the supply/demand concept. There was an excellent article in the National Geographic awhile back about it.

Now I'm waiting for Yogs to come in and say there's no problem with the oil supply and never will be. :p

If it makes you happy, I'll let you know that there is plenty of oil in the world. Its a question of will to go get it.

:sunglasse Welcome, Yogs; wasn't intending to be insulting in any way.

Although there may be quite a bit of oil remaining, you have to admit it's a finite supply. Have you had the opportunity to see the National Geographic article?

Part of that article (and associated graphics) here: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/

Further, much of the remaining oil is entrapped in some other media (oil sands of Canada a good example) or location that makes it quite difficult and expensive to get to.

China is starting to use a lot of oil, as is India. All the nations of the 3rd world that are becoming industrialized are beginning to use much more oil. Couple the reality of that increased demand with even a level supply, and it's easy to see that the price of oil and all its byproducts is going to continue an upward trend.

Even the oil industry itself admits that a peak in production is inevitable while demand is increasing like crazy. Nobody with any credibility is claiming otherwise. The only thing up for debate is when this peak will be reached not if. Some say we won't really know until after the fact, which makes the most sense to me. The fun really starts then!

Kinda makes you wonder why we're even bothering to tap into these supposed reserves in the Alaskan reserves, doesn't it? Seriously, what would it buy us, another few years? The immediate future (and I mean IMMEDIATE, as in the next few years) should belong almost exclusively to alternative fuels -- hell, we should be deep into the stuff now, it's not like various factions in our country haven't been at it for decades already. It's just a result of political BS and corporate BS. Somewhere a group of suits with a lot more power than we have are doing everything they can to stem the advancement of alternative fuels, because it would hurt them in their greedy little pocketbooks.

What sucks is around me its $2.55 for 87 octane.

Damn...where are you? Cali?

lol i work at sonic for $6 an hour. i have no money

but i agree about politicians sucking.

lol...nevermind, then...:p Politicians are, generally speaking, little more than paid liars...fuckin ass holes...

Now...here's what doesn't make sense. Yes, we will run out of oil at some point...possibly relatively soon with all the gas hogs out there. There is no arguing that. What just doesn't make sense is, if we're not out of oil NOW, then why the FUCK is gas so EXPENSIVE NOW?!?! At this time, it comes down to rate of production...not supply. Next question...who controls the rate of production and why the HELL are they dragging their feet with production? THAT, I don't know. Could it be that they're making LUDACRIS AMOUNTS OF MONEY RIGHT NOW!? Hmmm...gee...I wonder...but again, I dunno.

All in all, I'm getting really tired of this bullshit.

What just doesn't make sense is, if we're not out of oil NOW, then why the FUCK is gas so EXPENSIVE NOW?!?! At this time, it comes down to rate of production...not supply.

Couple things are contributing. First, there are only so many refineries. That limits the production. You could have an unlimited supply of free oil, and if the refineries couldn't keep up with demand then prices would still rise. I've recently read an article that suggested the oil companies, knowing that the oil will be running out in "X" number of years, don't want to put the money into new refineries to increase production. As you said, they're in it for the money and it wouldn't pay to do that.



Next question...who controls the rate of production and why the HELL are they dragging their feet with production? THAT, I don't know. Could it be that they're making LUDACRIS AMOUNTS OF MONEY RIGHT NOW!? Hmmm...gee...I wonder...but again, I dunno.
All in all, I'm getting really tired of this bullshit.

Again it's linked to the refineries' capacity to produce. 10 or 15 years ago, they could flood the market if they wanted to. Nowadays, that's less likely since the demand for petroleum products has increased so much.

In the city of Chicago I see BP prices around 2.72 for 87. Out in the burbs it's around 2.45.

Ha. If only you knew how much you were REALLY paying per gallon of gasoline in the U.S. Im talking aobut the hidden costs to keep the military in the M.E., keep kissing the saudi's buts, so on so forth.

It's a lot higher than $2.xx. You just don't see it.

start riding your bicycle. save on gas and get a workout at the same time.

one thing that people should also keep in mind is the ever increasing market for oil in China. i read or heard somewhere that China could very well pass the US in oil demands in the next 15-20 years. with the technologies used to refine oil improving it will help us out short term, but to me it seems like we are just delaying the inevitable. i want one of those back to the future cars that runs on trash or something like that.

i want one of those back to the future cars that runs on trash or something like that.


Heh heh, it's "Mr. Fusion"

Couple things are contributing. First, there are only so many refineries. That limits the production. You could have an unlimited supply of free oil, and if the refineries couldn't keep up with demand then prices would still rise. I've recently read an article that suggested the oil companies, knowing that the oil will be running out in "X" number of years, don't want to put the money into new refineries to increase production. As you said, they're in it for the money and it wouldn't pay to do that.


Again it's linked to the refineries' capacity to produce. 10 or 15 years ago, they could flood the market if they wanted to. Nowadays, that's less likely since the demand for petroleum products has increased so much.

Ok...then, going by what you're telling me, those same refineries you mention can no longer produce enough oil to keep prices where they were for SO LONG...as far back as I remember, I can't remember EVER even TALKING about gas prices. What happened? Did we start using WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more oil, all of a sudden putting a strain on the refineries or is something's goin on keeping production down...be it stupid political antics or whatever. It has to be one of those 2 things. The same refineries kept the prices down to a reasonable price for so long...I find it hard to believe that our usage has gone up so steeply as to increase the price of gas to record highs in just a couple years.

i understand your frustration longlivethez, but you have to understand, supply and demand doesnt work on a "must" principle, but a "can" principle.

lets imagine your an oil company. you happen to be in the business of supply the world with its life blood. without oil, society as we know it will cease to exist. but youve got alot of it, and knowing that you have a captive group of customers, you dont charge too much.

but as supplies begin to dwindle and demand increases (and you have to pay more money to find and refine more oil) you decide "this shit is getting expensive, my profit margin is dwindling" so you up the price, knowing that you can, because everyone needs oil.

now, suppose you hear about this "peak oil" thing, and realize that eventually supply will no longer keep up with demand.

*side note* this is the real problem. we're not going to run out of oil (though we will eventually) its that production will reach a peak, at which it can no longer keep up with demand. happened in texas in the 70's. still plenty of oil under there, just cant get to it cheaply and fast enough.*end note*

so, you realize that your life blood (oil has fed you and your family for your whole life) if about to be depleted. but you still have a captive consumer base. so you jack up the price, intending to make as much money while you still can, yet you keep it low enough that people will still hold out hope for alternative fuels and such and by doing so prevent the lynching of you and your company.

*another side note* alternative fuels are nice and all, but think about the technology that drive them. whats it based on? thats right! cheap oil. everything in our lives depends on cheap oil and coal reserves, even our power plants. time to go nuclear guys. stop being scared hippies, and push your local governments to set up a plan to go nuclear by 2020, or sooner. its alot safer than it used to be and alot cleaner. also, push your national government to demand a 10% fleet increase in MPG. this would help. and dammit, tap those alaskan reserves. the caribou can deal with it. *end rant*

Some good points LazySmurff, but when it comes to things like the wildlife preserve it's a matter (for me at least) of principle. Why should we have to even consider it? I can think of many reasons why it's just not a good idea: aside from the obvious threat to wildlife should an oil spill happen (much more difficult to try and clean up after in freezing, often ice choked waters) there's the looming possibility that we just flat out may not even FIND any there. The northern seas have been NOTORIOUS for leading companies into spending massive amounts of money on "dry wells" -- very promising drilling sites that never end up yielding any oil. BP Exploration spent over 750 MILLION DOLLARS because of regulatory/legal delays and unanticipated difficulties drilling...and their site yields about 60,000 barrels per day. The U.S. uses about 7 BILLION barrels a year. Suffice it to say, any way I try and approach the whole Alaska drilling business from a productivity standpoint, it strikes me as no more effective than a squirtgun on a forest fire.

You're right that so much in our lives depends on fossil fuels, including the steps toward alternative fuels -- but that's the problem. Fossil fuels have stuck around WAY beyond their time, which is a testament to their all-encompassing pervasiveness, which means that it makes it that much harder for us to get off them. We're like increasingly aging junkies -- as long as we keep getting our fix (in the necessarily increasing doses) everything's seemingly OK (to us.) But there eventually comes a time when a decision has to be made: get off the juice, and move on with life, or let the shit drag you down to the bottom. And right now, we're drowning fast. Developing countries like China and India are like new users: the high is speeding them up, keeping them on their toes, energizing them, etc. But it would be a lot easier for them at this early point to just drop the habit, and move on, as they're not really entrenched with the stuff yet.

Fossil fuel demands should have gone the way of the dinosaurs, Aristotle's solar system, and the Pinto. But instead, like hair-brained reality TV shows, the 2004 presidential campaign, and Michael Jackson, we've managed to keep the shit going. Why? Even if the governement spent "only" 500 million pursuing oil in Alaska, wouldn't that money be so much better spent on alternative fuel programs?

the stab at the alaskan reserves was meant (mostly) in jest. for the two years (give or take) that we'd get out of it, it would do ridiculous amounts of damage to the ecosystems and environments. to make my position clearer:

we should not be afraid to tap into those reserves. but it should be a last ditch effort. if we seek to continue to live as we do now, we must find a way to slow down our oil consumption long enough to develope reliable alternative energy sources. if we have to tap into those reserves in alaska to extend the amount of time we have, so be it.

but i would rather our government remove their heads from their asses and impose increased MPG mandates, as little as 5% would do an incredable amount, though id like to see a 15%-20% minimum.

for those of you keeping score, i understand that this is way out of step with my usual "no government" stance. allow me to explain. while i personally would love to see our impulsviely consumerist society crumble from its own overindulgence, i understand that the majority of americans ejoy their comfort, but what they fail to understand is that peak oil poses a much larger threat to our way of life than osama bin laden ever did. so, if mr bush is really interested in upholding all that rhetoric he and his collegues are spewing on a regular basis, i suggest he locate his balls, and stick it to the oil companies he so nobley serves.

I'm a bit too busy to read ALL of the info in all of those posts, but I read most of it and most of it said in different ways, essentially corroborating, EXACTLY what I'm pissed off about.

It all comes down to the greed of another. <--Nicely put and expletives deleted...

Heh, I live in the Netherlands and yesterday I payed 1.38 euro for 1 liter 95 octane, that's about 7.30 usd per gallon.

Drac

I guess we should quit our whining, eh?

I guess we should quit our whining, eh?

You can whine about it if you want to. Just wanted to add some perspective. I think the prices are even higher in the UK and Norway.

Drac

Dude...what the hell? How/why do you guys even drive any more? I'm sure it's not as bad for you guys, though, cuz you're used to it...it's all relative...that's just so expensive because of the currency exchange.

Dude...what the hell? How/why do you guys even drive any more? I'm sure it's not as bad for you guys, though, cuz you're used to it...it's all relative...that's just so expensive because of the currency exchange.

I guess it's just like smoking, no matter how expensive you make it, you'll keep on doin'it. Besides driving still beats going with public transportation, which isn't very practical when you need to visit clients. U.S. oil prices are lower, because you own more oil companies, I think. And we have to pay a shit load of taxes over our gas price.

and dammit, tap those alaskan reserves. the caribou can deal with it. *end rant* Funny story about that I heard couple years back. When they were test drilling Alaska the caribou were actually thriving. Apparently They like the heat produced from the pumps or something like that. So once again just a little hippie nonsense.

I guess it's just like smoking, no matter how expensive you make it, you'll keep on doin'it. Besides driving still beats going with public transportation, which isn't very practical when you need to visit clients. U.S. oil prices are lower, because you own more oil companies, I think. And we have to pay a shit load of taxes over our gas price.

Damn man...feel sorry for you guys...

also, understand that europe on the whole is alot more "walkable" than america, and they have subway.

i remember being in london and wondering why anyone owned a car at all (outside of the enthusiast that is) because it was a short walk and/or subway ride to wherever i needed to go.

here in the suburbian hell, the nearest grocery store is 5 miles away. not a long drive by any means, but im not exactly going to be able to walk it and expect my milk to still be good when i get home.

Well considering that the octane rating of the fuel in the U.S. is much lower (87,89,92-3) compared to other places (95-99) our gas should be cheaper but, its still much cheaper than what the Euros pay. I'm just glad that I never drive my 20mpg car since I have my 50mpg CBR (bike). Comparing the differences between my bike and car, it would be like paying $0.95 a gallon for my car!! Plus its so much more fun and whole lot faster. I can put $5 dollars in my bike and drive all week for what would cost me nearly $15 for my car (thats $20 vs. $60/month). I gotta say ever since I got the bike, I haven't really paid as much attention to the price of gas.

Moral of the story: Quite driving the gas guzzling SUVs, and buy a bike :lol:

I was thinking about getting a bike...but I just don't wanna get some crap-bike and I can't afford an expensive, good one...so...oh well...maybe I'll come across something.

I'm actually trying to find a job closer to home, so I can ride on my bike to work. But the missus still needs a car for our kids, three kids just won't fit on one bike :smile:

Heh, I live in the Netherlands and yesterday I payed 1.38 euro for 1 liter 95 octane, that's about 7.30 usd per gallon.

Drac
Dude, I was in the Netherlands and everyone biked everywhere. The bikes have their own lights and shit. I agree wth lazysmurff, you don't need a car in Europe seeing as how everywhere is more easily accessible in public transportation.

Well considering that the octane rating of the fuel in the U.S. is much lower (87,89,92-3) compared to other places (95-99) our gas should be cheaper but...

Wrong. Well. The RATINGS are different, but the gas is pretty much the same. Europe goes by just RON octane rating, while the uses uses the (RON + MON)/2, which is a more accurate way to rate gasoline.

The thing I keep hearing is that the government should be doing something blah blah blah. Bullshit! It’s not the government’s job to develop alternate fuel sources or the technology behind it or the infrastructure to produce and distribute it. The government should get the hell out of the way and let the market dictate the how’s and when’s. Governments are notorious at wasting money and burying projects in bureaucracy.

Let government do what its good at and do what it can to keep the playing field as fair as possible and let the private investor/inventors do what they do best. If you’re that fed up with the price of gas and want alternative fuels – do something about it. Invest in a firm that is doing research in that area. If your smart enough and in that field, work on it yourself. Quit waiting around for someone else to do it and then whining because some ambiguous government agency hasn’t done it either.

The world runs on cheap fuel and has for several hundred years. Wood, coal, oil, natural gas. None are in danger of running out anytime soon. The bulk of you are starting to learn about supply and demand. The few of us (around here) that remember the gas lines and prices of the 70s aren’t seeing anything new here. When prices went up then, the Chicken Littles were declaring that peak oil production was just around the corner and that supplies were running out. Predictions of twenty to thirty years supply was not uncommon to read about. Its thirty years later and another round is upon us.

I understand that there is a fixed supply. I also understand that demand is still going to rise so eventually the supply will reach its end. That end is not imminent. Alternative fuel sources are being researched by private companies around the world. Eventually, they will come up with something. Then we’ll hear more whining but about the cost of that fuel. The cost of development, cost of the distribution network and the reengineering of vehicles will all have to be paid for.

It’s the nature of people to whine and complain. Its not in their nature to do jack shit about it.

You know...I'd love to go research hydrogen cars, but I just don't really have the means to do that...

Let government do what its good at...

lol...what a cop-out...

I dated a foreign exchange student from Finland while I was in highschool. She was AMAZED by all the cars here and how spread out everything is. She was complaining cuz she thought she was going to get fat cuz she was SO used to walking everywhere...which I think is the way it should be. I live in Florence, Ky...a reasonably sized town in Northern Kenfucky and I LOVE being able to walk to blockbuster or the grocery store. When I lived with my parents, whos house is in the borderline country that is known as Union, Ky, this was not an option. Besides..."downtown" Union will be easily missed if you blink...it's only one stoplight. It's miles to anywhere of interest...eg blockbuster or the grocery store or whatever...

The world runs on cheap fuel and has for several hundred years. Wood, coal, oil, natural gas. None are in danger of running out anytime soon. The bulk of you are starting to learn about supply and demand. The few of us (around here) that remember the gas lines and prices of the 70s aren’t seeing anything new here. When prices went up then, the Chicken Littles were declaring that peak oil production was just around the corner and that supplies were running out. Predictions of twenty to thirty years supply was not uncommon to read about. Its thirty years later and another round is upon us.


Are you saying we have nothing to worry about? A lot of experts beg to differ. The National Geographic cover story even opened with "you've heard it before but this time it's real" or something very close to that. I don't think they and all the experts quoted in the article are "chicken littles".

btw, I was around (and driving) during the 70's. But this is different. Then it was strictly a production issue on account of the OPEC nations turning the screws on us. Now it is becoming a supply issue. Way different.

I too think this is different. I can't help but think that this isn't more political.

That end is not imminent.
you appear to be the only one that believes that. many, many scientists, oil researchers, and even historians would disagree with you. while im sure peak oil is a bit more then 5 years away (as the author of "the long emergency" would have you believe) i am going to side with the average and say its about 15 years away, give or take a few years.

Alternative fuel sources are being researched by private companies around the world. Eventually, they will come up with something.
"eventually" is not soon enough. and i think youve missed an important point, though it was quite buried and i didnt illustrate it well. all that research is fueled by what? cheap oil. most of the "alternavtive fuels" that people are working on are by products or based in what? cheap oil. natural gas you scream? reaching its peak right around the same time oil will. hydrogen cars the government says ? right....ill let you figure that out for yourself. nuclear power? fantastic idea, but how many nuclear plants are there in the US? how long would it take to get the US totally on nuclear power? a whee bit longer than the approach of the peak.

"eventually" just doesnt cut it.

and your right, the government shouldnt have to create alternate fuels, but if you wish for american society to remain unchanged, its time for you to get the government to do something to slow our consumption of oil, because people just arent going to do it themselves. for every prius i see on the road, i see 50 or so SUV's. americans are so damn stubborn (and the republican party does such a good job of painting enviromental concerns as fanatical "chicken littles") that the majority of america will refuse to address the problem until they have to choose between a gallon of gas and a meal for their kids. and even then, they'll miss the point and try address gas prices rather than alternative fuels.

and as much as id love to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into alternative fuel investments, i just dont have that kind of money. im doing great just to get by, as are the majority of americans. i dont think my jar of pennies is going to help any alternative fuel firm do anything but buy a few tacos for lunch.

you appear to be the only one that believes that. many, many scientists, oil researchers, and even historians would disagree with you. while im sure peak oil is a bit more then 5 years away (as the author of "the long emergency" would have you believe) i am going to side with the average and say its about 15 years away, give or take a few years. A USGS estimate gives 50 years at current consumption for 1 trillion barrels world reserves; extrapolated with projected increases (mainly China, India and growing/emerging third world economies) is closer to 35 - 38 years. These are for "known" reserves with conservative (low) estimated figures. We are still far from exhausting the world's petroleum reserves.

"eventually" is not soon enough. and i think youve missed an important point, though it was quite buried and i didnt illustrate it well. all that research is fueled by what? cheap oil. most of the "alternavtive fuels" that people are working on are by products or based in what? cheap oil. natural gas you scream? reaching its peak right around the same time oil will. hydrogen cars the government says ? right....ill let you figure that out for yourself. nuclear power? fantastic idea, but how many nuclear plants are there in the US? how long would it take to get the US totally on nuclear power? a whee bit longer than the approach of the peak.
The US government, and I don't mean the Administration but rather the Upper and Lower Houses, are going to do squat until the American people say they have to. The availability of cheap oil will not drive the people or the government to seek alternative fuel sources until the people finally stop and refuse to pay "X" dollars for a gallon of gasoline.

Why risk polluting this beautiful country for hundreds of thousands to millions of years with radioactive waste? Buy and burn the cheap oil from overseas. When that supply is exhausted, buy and burn the cheap coal from overseas. When that supply is exhausted, start burning the local oil and local coal (or their derivatives). Other countries rely heavily on nuclear power because they have no choice, relatively speaking -- the US has choices.

"eventually" just doesnt cut it.
The need to fuel faster, more powerful, cleaner, etc. "better" modes of transportation gave birth to the development of "alternative fuels" (diesel/gasoline) to fuel replacements of wood-fired or coal-fired steam engines. If there are no new needs perceived, there will be no new developments.

and your right, the government shouldnt have to create alternate fuels, but if you wish for american society to remain unchanged, its time for you to get the government to do something to slow our consumption of oil, because people just arent going to do it themselves.
It's more the American Way of Life that most people do not want to change. The government's responsibility is to protect that way of life. It's the people's responsibility to define what changes to make to that way of life. The majority of the people do not need or want any f*cking government to think for them, proven by the last presidential elections. It's up to us to make changes to our way of life before any government will follow our wishes -- not the other way around... this is the USA.

...for every prius i see on the road, i see 50 or so SUV's.
Freedom of choice, a.k.a. Freedom of Speech from many perspectives. I'll need 10 Priuses strapped together to pull a 6000 lb boat/trailer (although there'll be plenty of room to seat my wife and three kids). Hence, I chose a 4x4 Tahoe with a diesel engine that gives me 22 mpg on the highway. Better than a Prius' fuel consumption? You betcha! (and I can still go off-road and drive through 2 feet of snow).

...americans are so damn stubborn (and the republican party does such a good job of painting enviromental concerns as fanatical "chicken littles") that the majority of america will refuse to address the problem until they have to choose between a gallon of gas and a meal for their kids. and even then, they'll miss the point and try address gas prices rather than alternative fuels.
It's the American Way of Life and besides: Global warming is part of the Ice Age cycle -- we are still coming out of the last one. The last eruption of Mt. Pinatubo ejected more sulphur and "pollutants" into the atmosphere than the whole industrial revolution to-date. Scientists were mistaken in their theory that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning would radically increase the greenhouse effect -- "Oh, how about that, the ocean absorbed more than half of the carbon that was missing from our estimates... it must have done that before..."

...and as much as id love to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into alternative fuel investments, i just dont have that kind of money. im doing great just to get by, as are the majority of americans. i dont think my jar of pennies is going to help any alternative fuel firm do anything but buy a few tacos for lunch.
Not until there's a need for it. I lost 15% of my investment in hydrogen fuel cell technology development a few years back -- pulled out, bought Marvel ("MVL"as in Spiderman) and more than quadrupled it before selling. Yep, paid taxes on them -- that's the American Way of Life.

Hey!!! I drive a Toyota Tacoma and that thing sucks gas down like a pornstar would. Over here in Cali its $2.57 for 87 octane. But wat are you gonna do. We all need to get around and that means we're gonna have to spend money. It just pisses me off that gas prices are getting high. Fucken people from middle east. j/k

Hey!!! I drive a Toyota Tacoma and that thing sucks gas down like a pornstar would. Over here in Cali its $2.57 for 87 octane. But wat are you gonna do. We all need to get around and that means we're gonna have to spend money. It just pisses me off that gas prices are getting high. Fucken people from middle east. j/k
Are you fucking dense? What are you going to do? Buy something that consumes less.

A USGS estimate gives 50 years at current consumption for 1 trillion barrels world reserves; extrapolated with projected increases (mainly China, India and growing/emerging third world economies) is closer to 35 - 38 years. These are for "known" reserves with conservative (low) estimated figures. We are still far from exhausting the world's petroleum reserves.
but its not total reserves we're talking about. if we go on total reserves, we've only used about half the worlds oil. its running out of the cheap, easily accesable oil thats a problem. production can only keep up with demand for so long.

The US government, and I don't mean the Administration but rather the Upper and Lower Houses, are going to do squat until the American people say they have to. The availability of cheap oil will not drive the people or the government to seek alternative fuel sources until the people finally stop and refuse to pay "X" dollars for a gallon of gasoline.
thinking the government somehow acts only on the whim of the people is absurdly niave. our government passes all kinds of laws and regulations without consulting the people on whether or not they think anything should be done about it. people arent just going to stop buying gasoline all of a sudden. i remember when people thought 1.50 was expensive. now, 1.90 is cheap. are budgets will just continue to adjust themselves to feed our addiction to oil.

Why risk polluting this beautiful country for hundreds of thousands to millions of years with radioactive waste? Buy and burn the cheap oil from overseas. When that supply is exhausted, buy and burn the cheap coal from overseas. When that supply is exhausted, start burning the local oil and local coal (or their derivatives). Other countries rely heavily on nuclear power because they have no choice, relatively speaking -- the US has choices.
oh man. nuclear energy is so much cleaner than it used to be. cleaner, in fact, than burning oil and coal. and yes, we have choices. but the problem is, those choices are quickly disapearing. we also have another choice. develop alternative sources of energy quickly.

The need to fuel faster, more powerful, cleaner, etc. "better" modes of transportation gave birth to the development of "alternative fuels" (diesel/gasoline) to fuel replacements of wood-fired or coal-fired steam engines. If there are no new needs perceived, there will be no new developments.
new needs are percieved. im telling you of one right now. cheap oil is not going to exist much longer. period. we NEED a new source of power.

It's more the American Way of Life that most people do not want to change. The government's responsibility is to protect that way of life. It's the people's responsibility to define what changes to make to that way of life. The majority of the people do not need or want any f*cking government to think for them, proven by the last presidential elections. It's up to us to make changes to our way of life before any government will follow our wishes -- not the other way around... this is the USA.
despite what you wish to believe the bush government does quite a bit of thinking for the american people...but we're avoiding that right now. the fact is this. the american way of life will change, whether we want it to or not. now, that change can come slow and easy as we integrate alternative fuels into our lives over a long course of time, or it can come fast and harsh, as all of a sudden we're thrust into a situation where we simply cannot afford to continue living like we do. and your right, no government should force people to change, but no responsable government should allow their country to continue on a path of self destruction either.

Freedom of choice, a.k.a. Freedom of Speech from many perspectives. I'll need 10 Priuses strapped together to pull a 6000 lb boat/trailer (although there'll be plenty of room to seat my wife and three kids). Hence, I chose a 4x4 Tahoe with a diesel engine that gives me 22 mpg on the highway. Better than a Prius' fuel consumption? You betcha! (and I can still go off-road and drive through 2 feet of snow). you made a good choice. deisel engines get ridiculously good gas mileage for what they do. and it sounds like you actually use your SUV for more than a fashion statement. you are a rarity.

It's the American Way of Life and besides: Global warming is part of the Ice Age cycle -- we are still coming out of the last one. The last eruption of Mt. Pinatubo ejected more sulphur and "pollutants" into the atmosphere than the whole industrial revolution to-date. Scientists were mistaken in their theory that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning would radically increase the greenhouse effect -- "Oh, how about that, the ocean absorbed more than half of the carbon that was missing from our estimates... it must have done that before..."
so here we go, one more person clamering about how global warming is a farce, volcanoes pollute, and scientists were wrong about CO2. ive heard this before, its the standard republican party line. *yawn* explain away rainforest depletion, the impact of urban sprawl on natural ecosystems, the role of unnatural high and lower pressure systems on the change of weather patterns...etc.

Not until there's a need for it. I lost 15% of my investment in hydrogen fuel cell technology development a few years back -- pulled out, bought Marvel ("MVL"as in Spiderman) and more than quadrupled it before selling. Yep, paid taxes on them -- that's the American Way of Life.
thats a harsh hit on hydrogen cell research. sorry to hear that, but its good to hear marvel is doing well.

Dude, I was in the Netherlands and everyone biked everywhere. The bikes have their own lights and shit. I agree wth lazysmurff, you don't need a car in Europe seeing as how everywhere is more easily accessible in public transportation.

That's true to an extend. It's a 41 mile drive to work, that costs me about 1 hour, if I take public transport it will take 2,5 hours due to bad connections and such.
If I lived closer to my work the only thing I would need a car for would be transportation of my children and the occasional trip to IKEA (damn those swedes and their ugly furniture!).

Hydrogen is a waste of time, i don't know why people cling to trying to make it practical, because it never will be.

The problem with alternative fuels is that theres still plenty of oil left in the world. So much so that if company Y were to really hunker down on alternative fuels and offer cars powered by (whatever), then all the petroleum companies would just let their prices drop like a rock so that it's the far cheaper option - people will continue to buy oil, and company Y will go bankrupt or ExxonMobil will buy them and all of the rights to their product.

IMO, if people really want to get off of foreign dino oil, the next best thing is BIODIESEL. We all know that diesel engines are great transport (its torque that carts your fat ass around, not horsepower) and stupendously good on fuel. Just look at any of the modern VW diesels. Conservative driving on the highway yeilds ~50-55 MPG. For those people who are trying as hard as they can to get the best gas mileage, i've seen some hit 61-62 MPG. But most people would probably see around 45-50 MPG on the highway, and 35-40 in the city. I don't want to hear any BS about how diesel is dirtier and worse for the envoronment and health (you listening up, Society of Concerned but stupid Scientists?) because its really not with todays technologies (particualte filters, direct injection, biodeisel fuel). As a matter of fact, researchers are just finding out NOW that gasoline engines emit particulates, except they are an order of magnitude smaller than diesel particualtes, which means they're a lot worse for you in the long run. Gee.. who'da thunk.

Nuclear power is great! I think though that we as a world should put a lot more effort into making a practical and productive nuclear FUSION reactor. Thereby, we get lots more power per pound of (whatever) we fuse, and there's hardly any highly radioactive material left over. If we could get one to work, this country would need only a few to power everything electrical needed. The biggest problem would be power loss over long transmission lines.

so uh.. i forgot my original point by now. But yeah.

Solar, hydro, geothermal, wind, tidal, all natural.

Prob. is the tech. to make them $$$$ feasible, to lessen the oil-load on anything outside of internal combust machines.

So, Lazy does have one good point, in that the oil barons would likely drop their prices to stay in biz, if an alternate was feasible.

Hydrogen is a waste of time, i don't know why people cling to trying to make it practical, because it never will be.
:werd:

The problem with alternative fuels is that theres still plenty of oil left in the world. So much so that if company Y were to really hunker down on alternative fuels and offer cars powered by (whatever), then all the petroleum companies would just let their prices drop like a rock so that it's the far cheaper option - people will continue to buy oil, and company Y will go bankrupt or ExxonMobil will buy them and all of the rights to their product.
have you read anything thats been typed, or did you just jump in without bothering to go over what people have already said? yes, we've only used 50% of the worlds oil. the problem is we've used the cheap and easy to get to 50%. we're not running out of oil. we're running out of the stuff thats cheap enough to run a society on. :disappoin and if a cheap, viable alternative we're to come around, your right, oil companies would have to drop their prices, but they wouldnt be able to by too much. read this next part very carefully there is a limited amount of cheap oil left on this planet. when supply decreases, prices go up. while demand will drop with an alternative being produced...the supply of cheap oil will not all of a sudden go up.

if people really want to get off of foreign dino oil, the next best thing is BIODIESEL.
biodiesel is pretty badass, but yet again, its another alternative fuel pased in and powered by cheap oil. you people arent paying attention. this problem is alot more pervasive than what powers our cars. it has to do with what powers our society.

Nuclear power is great! I think though that we as a world should put a lot more effort into making a practical and productive nuclear FUSION reactor. Thereby, we get lots more power per pound of (whatever) we fuse, and there's hardly any highly radioactive material left over. If we could get one to work, this country would need only a few to power everything electrical needed. The biggest problem would be power loss over long transmission lines.
fission or fusion..it needs to happen. fission is fast becoming cleaner and safer than it ever has been. we need to go ahead and embrace that as our future.

So, Lazy does have one good point, in that the oil barons would likely drop their prices to stay in biz, if an alternate was feasible. that was steel. not me. and i like to think i have more than one good point.

Just to add to lazysmurf's comments.

1. At some point, it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than is worthwhile.

2. Solar cells currently need more energy to manufacture than they will ever produce in their lifespans.

3. During the age of oil, agriculture moved from being human and animal powered and became mechanised. People no longer needed to be employed in agriculture hence the urban migration.

If the supply of cheap energy declines, forget worrying about how you'll get around - you'll be too busy trying to find something to eat.

There is currently one country that has survived this crisis of lost energy supply causing food shortages. That country endured some considerable hardship but they made it.

The Example of Cuba
How we might do that is suggested by perhaps the best recent historical example of a society experiencing a fossil-fuel famine. In the late 1980s, farmers in Cuba were highly reliant on cheap fuels and petrochemicals imported from the Soviet Union, using more agrochemicals per acre than their American counterparts. In 1990, as the Soviet empire collapsed, Cuba lost those imports and faced an agricultural crisis. The population lost 20 pounds on average and malnutrition was nearly universal, especially among young children. The Cuban GDP fell by 85 percent and inhabitants of the island nation experienced a substantial decline in their material standard of living.

Cuban authorities responded by breaking up large state-owned farms, offering land to farming families, and encouraging the formation of small agricultural co-ops. Cuban farmers began employing oxen as a replacement for the tractors they could no longer afford to fuel. Cuban scientists began investigating biological methods of pest control and soil fertility enhancement. The government sponsored widespread education in organic food production, and the Cuban people adopted a mostly vegetarian diet out of necessity. Salaries for agricultural workers were raised, in many cases to above the levels of urban office workers. Urban gardens were encouraged in parking lots and on public lands, and thousands of rooftop gardens appeared. Small food animals such as chickens and rabbits began to be raised on rooftops as well.

As a result of these efforts, Cuba was able to avoid what might otherwise have been a severe famine. Today the nation is changing from an industrial to an agrarian society. While energy use in Cuba is now one-twentieth of that in the US, the economy is growing at a slow but steady rate. Food production has returned to 90 percent of its pre-crisis levels.

source: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070505_world_stories.shtml

im paying 2.37 here in New Hampshire for gas, the highest ive seen is 3.01

Let Mickey D's waste french-fry oil fuel the ride. Some school buses are using this veggie oil in a mix to run their engines. I don't know all the details, just saw it on CNN. Sort of a bio-diesel formula [at least that seems the term being used to describe it].

Gotta love french fries!!!!

and to think, people willingly ingest that shit. ugh

but its not total reserves we're talking about. if we go on total reserves, we've only used about half the worlds oil. its running out of the cheap, easily accesable oil thats a problem. production can only keep up with demand for so long.
If it's in the ground, difficult or not to get at, it's "reserves" and out of the ground volumes are insignificant in comparison anyway.

thinking the government somehow acts only on the whim of the people is absurdly niave. our government passes all kinds of laws and regulations without consulting the people on whether or not they think anything should be done about it.
It works like this for the ones who can think for themselves: you vote for the politicians who will push for legislation that you believe in and support because you have made it clear to them that their platform is what you want the future to be. After they are voted into office, they can still be contacted for follow up on issues that were promised, agreed upon or implied ("keep going and you'll be reelected" or "pull back or we won't vote for you again"). In rare cases, a recall may be in order.

It works like this for the ones who cannot think for themselves: you vote for the politicians you are told to vote for.

Clearly, the latter are more ignorant, voluntarily or involuntarily, about the processes involved because they cannot or are not allowed to think for themselves. Therefore, "absurdly naive" applies directly to this group.

<snip>oh man. nuclear energy is so much cleaner than it used to be.
Last time I checked, the half-lives for radioactive material used in nuclear power generation remains unchanged. Nuclear waste disposal technology needs to be further developed -- this is where alternative energy source development should be more focused so that conversion of energy from nuclear power generation for general use can proceed with less reservation and hindrance.

despite what you wish to believe the bush government does quite a bit of thinking for the american people...but we're avoiding that right now.
We voted for him and he's doing what we want him to do. The only thinking he's doing is for the people who cannot think for themselves.

the fact is this. the american way of life will change, whether we want it to or not. now, that change can come slow and easy as we integrate alternative fuels into our lives over a long course of time, or it can come fast and harsh, as all of a sudden we're thrust into a situation where we simply cannot afford to continue living like we do.
We will change when we're ready to and we, the people, will have a say in that.

and your right, no government should force people to change, but no responsable government should allow their country to continue on a path of self destruction either.
If you bunch the Clinton administration into that implication, I would tend to agree with you, but since it reeks more of bi-partisan rhetoric, it is more easily rejected as such.

you made a good choice. deisel engines get ridiculously good gas mileage for what they do. and it sounds like you actually use your SUV for more than a fashion statement. you are a rarity.
Oh, it IS a fashion statement. And even if I use it differently, it is still MY choice. People are allowed to choose -- it's their right.

so here we go, one more person clamering about how global warming is a farce, volcanoes pollute, and scientists were wrong about CO2. ive heard this before, its the standard republican party line. As difficult as it sounds for the "chicken littles" of the world, it is true and no posturing or rhetoric will change the truth: volcanoes are horrible polluters and scientists continue to be wrong about "greenhouse gases." Here's another one they're wrong about: CFCs and the ozone hole. China and India are worse polluters than the US ever was and the hole continues to shrink.

*yawn* explain away rainforest depletion,
Chainsaws and bulldozers, the bulk of which is occurring in South America. Results of logging and urban sprawl, not burning of fossil fuels, specifically, oil. Perhaps, your yawn is more related to your question...

the impact of urban sprawl on natural ecosystems,
Has nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels, specifically, oil. Has more to do with growing populations. *yawn* (my turn)

the role of unnatural high and lower pressure systems on the change of weather patterns...etc.
Weather patterns are never identical regardless of whose almanac you're reading. Temperature and rainfall averages are exactly that: averages. We start recording these readings over 150 years and conclude that the sky is falling...

thats a harsh hit on hydrogen cell research. sorry to hear that, but its good to hear marvel is doing well.
The public-at-large still perceives sources for alternative fuels as a "no need right now" situation. THAT is the real world for most people today. Almost doubled on SIRI (Siruis Satellite), i.e., alternative source for music.

Let Mickey D's waste french-fry oil fuel the ride. Some school buses are using this veggie oil in a mix to run their engines. I don't know all the details, just saw it on CNN. Sort of a bio-diesel formula [at least that seems the term being used to describe it].

Gotta love french fries!!!!
Burns MUCH cleaner than petroleum distillate although it has about 10% less energy content.

When a working diesel engine was displayed in the 1900 World's Fair in Paris, it ran on peanut oil.

Diesel fuel, fossil-fuel derived, or as bio-diesel, is a near-term solution for conserving the world's oil reserves.

If it's in the ground, difficult or not to get at, it's "reserves" and out of the ground volumes are insignificant in comparison anyway.
you have totally missed the point.

It works like this for the ones who can think for themselves: you vote for the politicians who will push for legislation that you believe in and support because you have made it clear to them that their platform is what you want the future to be.
and they say liberals are idealists. geez. you cannot honestly think this is how it truly works. please, for the love of god, tell me you dont. politicians push whatever agenda will keep them in power, and keep the money rolling in. while there are still a few good wo/men in DC, the fact remains that politicians care very little for the people that voted for them, but rather serve the businesses and special interest groups that fund their campaigns.

Last time I checked, the half-lives for radioactive material used in nuclear power generation remains unchanged. Nuclear waste disposal technology needs to be further developed -- this is where alternative energy source development should be more focused so that conversion of energy from nuclear power generation for general use can proceed with less reservation and hindrance.
:werd:


We voted for him and he's doing what we want him to do. The only thinking he's doing is for the people who cannot think for themselves.
if be "we" you mean barely 51% of the voting population, then yea. for those of us that didnt vote for him, i disagree. his administration is doing things i wholeheartedly disagree with, and trying to create (and creating) public policy that is destroying my freedom of choice. but i said we would avoid this, so we are.

We will change when we're ready to and we, the people, will have a say in that. we will change either when we are ready to, or are forced to. the fact of the matter is, people are so ignorant of the situation that we will be forced to long before we choose to. we cannot choose when the oil peak will happen, but we can do everything in our power to soften the impact that it has on our society. denying the problem will not make it go away.

If you bunch the Clinton administration into that implication, I would tend to agree with you, but since it reeks more of bi-partisan rhetoric, it is more easily rejected as such.i bunch every administration since washington in that statement. there no partisan rhetoric here. i hate party politics.

Oh, it IS a fashion statement. And even if I use it differently, it is still MY choice. People are allowed to choose -- it's their right. people are allowed to choose, but they should make informed decisions. and the fact of he matter is, they arent being informed. "well, we cant afford gas and our society crumbled because we didnt choose to pay attention to oil supply, but at least we still have our damn hummers." :rolleyes:

As difficult as it sounds for the "chicken littles" of the world, it is true and no posturing or rhetoric will change the truth: volcanoes are horrible polluters and scientists continue to be wrong about "greenhouse gases." Here's another one they're wrong about: CFCs and the ozone hole. China and India are worse polluters than the US ever was and the hole continues to shrink.
look, im no chicken litte. global warming is a fact of history, not pollution. and your right, volcanoes are bad polluters, but that doesnt mean we should keep helping them. this "someone else does it worse" attitude is absurd and childish. just because someone else does it worse, doesnt mean we cant strive to do better.

Chainsaws and bulldozers, the bulk of which is occurring in South America. Results of logging and urban sprawl, not burning of fossil fuels, specifically, oil. Perhaps, your yawn is more related to your question... but urban sprawl is related to oil, if you cant see that, your missing the bigger picture here. urban sprawl is a result of a society that has such a cheap energy source as oil to get around, that building "out and not up" doesnt matter. being able to walk somewhere isnt important, cuz you can drive. and no, the yawn was for the typical "naysayers" rhetoric that you spewed about how wrong scientists are, and how volcanoes pollute worse than america. its old hat, time your favorite party to come up with a different line.

Weather patterns are never identical regardless of whose almanac you're reading. Temperature and rainfall averages are exactly that: averages. We start recording these readings over 150 years and conclude that the sky is falling...
you missed the point (its becoming a habit for you, i fear :biggrin: )big cities create artificial high and low pressure areas that artifically affect weather patterns and over the course of time could adversly affect the eco system (well, whats left of it) but we dont know for sure, cuz its only been a problem for a few hundred years.

The public-at-large still perceives sources for alternative fuels as a "no need right now" situation. THAT is the real world for most people today.
we, public perception and the facts of life are two different things. like ive been saying. percieving alternate energy sources as not necessary doesnt make them unneccesary, it makes us stupid and stubborn. a dangerous combination.

Almost doubled on SIRI (Siruis Satellite), i.e., alternative source for music.
lets hope it doesnt become the next cable. pay for it and you still have to listen to commercials. lame.

Who else finds it convinient that an over-night price hike on the barrels is an over-night price hike at the pump?

Our government are double-taxing our fuel, if they removed even the lower tax that would make Australians happy.

Update on gas prices for 87 octane: $2.64