Rich in Ohio Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 I am sorry to tell you this, but that is indeed true. I work in this industry and analyze the data very carefully. I can write a FFS type post and still would not cover half of the aspects but here are some quick notes:- Refinery capacity is near maximum and demand has SURGED since 2004. We were on the edge of the supply demand curve and now it has been tipped over - too much demand for the supply. The market is still trying to get the demand curve down with increasing prices. - Oil is high cos of the high end products demand and political uncertainty around Middle East (Gaza pullout, Iraq war, Saudi premier's death) - MTBE was taken out of gasoline because of political pressure. We lost 3% of the total gasoline pool in the US because of that. This was the most moronic non-science based political move in the history of petroleum. We are replacing it with ethanol which has lower clean-air properties. 407676[/snapback] Please don't try to help these idiots understand......it will only make your brain hurt. They are not interested in common sense or hearing from people who actually work in the industry...they need something to hate...and something to B word about to make thier meaningless lives somehow seem meaningful. I for one welcome some higher gas prices...I have noticed that there are fewer people on the road. If this is the price that I have to pay for more open roads to unwind my HEMI...then I am all for $5.00 per gallon prices. Its just money...if you need more...then make more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 Personally I don't mind the gas hike. I don't drive my car much anyways. It's my opinion though that everyone who is stupid enough to buy an SUV or Hummer is now getting what they deserve. 407863[/snapback] No, No, NO, you have it all wrong. It is Bushs fault that they bought an SUV during the Clinton era, and now they have to pay the gas prices because Bush invaded Iraq. Don't you know Haliburton is behind it all so that George can own all the oil in the world and make billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 But the crude oil is getting heavier on average. Didn't know that, though I guess it makes sense. Lighter crude is at a premium over the lighter variety. One way or the other, a refiner has to pay. 407902[/snapback] What I was trying to say. You want to squeeze more gas out of maxed-out refineries, you have to refine oil that has a "greater amount of gasoline" in it (yeah, I know that's way unscientific...I can't remember the chemistry off the top of my head)...which drives up demand for light sweet crude. Basically, it's a complicated subject, where oil can drive gas prices or vice-versa. But of course everyone's an expert anyway, because they heard something on the news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 Exactly. Imagine we live in a world where milk suddenly spikes to $100 a gallon. Ben and Jerry's then releases a statement that the reason their ice cream is so expensive is because they can't keep up with demand and they need more facilities. Okey Dokey! (Sirens) The analogy police are here to take away your analogy licence... Oil (specifically gasoline) is a very inelastic demand. This means that the price of the good (oil) does not impact demand. Ice cream is very elastic. I go to the store and see that it is $5 for a half gallon, i leave the store without it. Have a buy 1 get one free sale...i take some home. Oil demand has skyrocketed due to a number of things (increased energy consumption, SUVs, global warming (so the left tells us), etc..). While demand is going through the roof, the supply of oil remains constant. It doesnt take an economics major to see that high demand and low supply causes high prices. Again the ice cream analogy is flawed. Supply is drastically reduced, thus driving up the price, leading to lower demand. Two different worlds. There are 2 ways to solve this oil problem. 1) More Supply 2) Lower Demand Period. We have little control over the supply. But even if we did, we do not have enough refineries to process enough oil to meet our increased demand. Therefore, we do need to build more refineries..but it needs to be coupled with a real and sustained effort to lower our demand. Hopefully this is occuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 *delete* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted August 15, 2005 Share Posted August 15, 2005 Personally I don't mind the gas hike. I don't drive my car much anyways. It's my opinion though that everyone who is stupid enough to buy an SUV or Hummer is now getting what they deserve. 407863[/snapback] What? Autos we still like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BILLS4LIFE Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I paid $2.47 last Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 1.14 a litre today in montreal cost me 70$ to fill up my van and that was prepaid, had i known i would have been able to put maybe 4-5 more dollars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/15/hybrid....s.ap/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I burn 92/93 octane. $2.89 per gallon at my corner gas station (Alexandria, VA). I pretty much don't do any driving past to/from work right now, and fortunately that's close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 It's Bush's fault that everyone bought an SUV over the last 10 years. 407768[/snapback] Actually there was a huge tax credit two years ago to buy one for business. Almost every doctor in private practice picked up an SUV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Actually there was a huge tax credit two years ago to buy one for business. Which was not a horrible idea... Almost every doctor in private practice picked up an SUV. 408517[/snapback] But it was horribly implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Actually there was a huge tax credit two years ago to buy one for business.Almost every doctor in private practice picked up an SUV. 408517[/snapback] Actually that is an old tax credit for large truck like vehicles. Been on the book for year, and was meant for small businesses to use it to buy delivery trucks. Just someone figured out that Humvees and Suburbans weighed so much that they too qualified, if you owned your own business. So not a new law, just another use for an existing one was figured out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/08/15/hybrid....s.ap/index.html 408471[/snapback] This is standard shallow news reporting. The electricity needed to charge the batteries is generated largely by either coal, oil or gas (others are nuclear and renewables). It is highly inefficient to burn one of these, make electricity, send it over the grid, have it charge some batteries to save emissions ? Imagine the losses at each step of the chain and you realize why this does not make overall economic or environmental sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 I burn 92/93 octane. $2.89 per gallon at my corner gas station (Alexandria, VA). I pretty much don't do any driving past to/from work right now, and fortunately that's close. 408515[/snapback] Does your car really need the high octane gas ? A small percent of high performance, high end vehicles really need anything more than standard 87 octane gas. Check your owners manual. Else you may be flushing $$ down the toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Does your car really need the high octane gas ? A small percent of high performance, high end vehicles really need anything more than standard 87 octane gas. Check your owners manual. Else you may be flushing $$ down the toilet. 408570[/snapback] Knocks if I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Knocks if I don't. 408637[/snapback] Which car is it ? If it is a vintage car needing leaded gasoline, maybe you don't have a choice. But if it is built for unleaded and the owner's manual says 87, then you are better off getting it checked and fixed (probably a major tune-up ~$75). Cheaper in the long run than paying 30c/gal extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 This is standard shallow news reporting. The electricity needed to charge the batteries is generated largely by either coal, oil or gas (others are nuclear and renewables). It is highly inefficient to burn one of these, make electricity, send it over the grid, have it charge some batteries to save emissions ? Imagine the losses at each step of the chain and you realize why this does not make overall economic or environmental sense. 408568[/snapback] Well, the difference is the electricity is subsidized, as opposed to the gas industry, so it's effectively much lighter on the consumer pocketbook from an economic standpoint. After all, the .25 they quote for an overnight charge is a small price to pay to get 5x the mileage, or even 20-30 mpg more. And there's nothing to prevent someone from building a charging station that is powered by alternate, renewable means (it's not a lot of power...)...of course then you're still talking about the cost of the conversion kit + your "recharge station" but if, for example, your house is "green" anyway (powered in part or in full by renewable energy) as many new homes in California for instance are, then that certainly alters the cost/benefit analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Well, the difference is the electricity is subsidized, as opposed to the gas industry, so it's effectively much lighter on the consumer pocketbook from an economic standpoint. After all, the .25 they quote for an overnight charge is a small price to pay to get 5x the mileage, or even 20-30 mpg more. And there's nothing to prevent someone from building a charging station that is powered by alternate, renewable means (it's not a lot of power...)...of course then you're still talking about the cost of the conversion kit + your "recharge station" but if, for example, your house is "green" anyway (powered in part or in full by renewable energy) as many new homes in California for instance are, then that certainly alters the cost/benefit analysis. 408800[/snapback] I was actually referring to the overall economics. Subsidies prevent free market economics to take place so in essence hampers true innovation. I agree with you that the consumer may pay less for charging the battery, but if the fundamentals are not right, the tax payer is paying for the subsidies. Which means all of us pay for pushing some hair-brained idea. For renewables, take the example of wind power. Once installed, the electricity is the closest you can get to free. But the upfront costs, the variability of supply are so large that again the economics do not make sense compared to conventional generation means. The only reason you see so many wind farms going up (huge amount is Denmark, Germany, UK) is that they are subsidized by the federal govt. and have guaranteed rates that will be paid to the producers. A political ploy if you may call it so. Only place where subsidies may work is where costs would go down with large deployments and government money will help get the industry out of its learning phase/curve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 This is standard shallow news reporting. The electricity needed to charge the batteries is generated largely by either coal, oil or gas (others are nuclear and renewables). It is highly inefficient to burn one of these, make electricity, send it over the grid, have it charge some batteries to save emissions ? Imagine the losses at each step of the chain and you realize why this does not make overall economic or environmental sense. 408568[/snapback] i agree but at least its a start towards the right direction imagine how much gas we'd consume if as many people owned cars and they were all V8's at least every small step, albeit small is still better than inaction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts