Oil jumps above $100 on refinery outage

HungLikeJesus • Feb 20, 2008 1:57 am
This AP article is a little contradictory, but it says that oil prices have closed above $100 per barrel for the first time.

Increasing gas prices haven't had much apparent effect on driving habits in the US. Or maybe I'm just not seeing it. Have you made any changes to your lifestyle due to higher energy costs?

I think we might see gas at $4/gallon this year.

----------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK (AP) - Oil futures shot higher Tuesday, closing above $100 for the first time as investors bet that crude prices will keep climbing despite evidence of plentiful supplies and falling demand. At the pump, gas prices rose further above $3 a gallon.

There was no single driver behind oil's sharp price jump; investors seized on an explosion at a 67,000 barrel per day refinery in Texas, the falling dollar, the possibility that OPEC may cut production next month, the threat of new violence in Nigeria and continuing tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela.

The fact that there was no overriding reason for such a price spike could be a bad omen for consumers already bearing the burdens of high heating costs and falling real estate values. Many recent forecasts have said oil demand growth this year will be less than initially expected, yet prices continue to rise. That suggests they may continue rising as the weakening dollar attracts new investors to the futures market.

Rising oil prices mean higher gas prices.

"As the economy weakens, it's going to be met with $3.50 and $3.60 gasoline," said James Cordier, founder of OptionSellers.com, a Tampa, Fla., trading firm. "And that really spells trouble for the consumer."

Light, sweet crude for March delivery rose $4.51 to settle at a record $100.01 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after earlier rising to $100.10, a new trading record. It was the first time since Jan. 3 that oil had been above $100.

Oil prices are still within the range of inflation-adjusted highs set in early 1980. Depending on how the adjustment is calculated, $38 a barrel then would be worth $96 to $103 or more today.

Crude futures offer a hedge against a falling dollar, and oil futures bought and sold in dollars are more attractive to foreign investors when the greenback is falling.

"I really think ... crude oil's going to soar through $100," Cordier said.

At the pump, meanwhile, gas prices jumped 1.8 cents to a national average price of $3.032 a gallon Tuesday, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Retail prices, which typically lag the futures market, are following oil prices higher. The Energy Department and many analysts expect gas prices to peak this spring well above last May's record of $3.227 a gallon.

Gasoline and heating oil prices appeared to lead Tuesday's wide advance in energy prices due to the explosion Monday at Alon USA's Big Spring, Texas, refinery, which could be shuttered for two months.

"The refinery fire in Texas is making people a little concerned," said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc. in Amherst, Mass.

March gasoline jumped 10.93 cents to settle at a record $2.6031 a gallon, and March heating oil rose 11.45 cents to settle at $2.7614 a gallon, also a record.

A threat by a rebel group in Nigeria to escalate attacks on the nation's crude oil infrastructure helped boost oil prices. The rebels were acting in response to rumors that the government had killed a captured leader, whom authorities later said was safe and well. Militant attacks have cut about 20 percent of Nigeria's crude output in recent years.

For the moment, investors appear to have put aside concerns about the economy that have sent oil prices down into the mid-$80 range twice in the last month. Traders are instead focused on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which will meet early next month to map out production plans, and Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez made conflicting statements this weekend about the country's legal dispute with Exxon Mobil Corp.

OPEC could move to cut production in the second quarter, typically a period of low demand, though many analysts feel that's unlikely. In Venezuela, Chavez said he was not serious about an earlier threat to cut oil sales to the U.S., but also threatened to sue Exxon Mobil. The world's largest oil company is fighting Venezuela's nationalization of an oil project, and recently convinced several courts to freeze $12 billion in Venezuelan oil assets.

Other energy futures also rose Tuesday. March natural gas jumped 31.7 cents to settle at $8.977 per 1,000 cubic feet. Analysts said prices were supported by forecasts for cooler weather, but that futures were also following oil prices higher.

In London, Brent crude for April delivery rose $3.65 to settle at $98.56 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange.


(Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)
smoothmoniker • Feb 20, 2008 6:02 pm
I love my diesel jetta. It's gonna save me a billion dollars if gas keeps going up.
Aliantha • Feb 20, 2008 6:06 pm
you know, if you pay $4/gallon, you're still paying less than we do in Australia. Consider yourselves lucky. ;)
HungLikeJesus • Feb 20, 2008 6:39 pm
smoothmoniker, what's your fuel mileage on the Jetta?
smoothmoniker • Feb 21, 2008 10:06 am
I've gotten as high as 45mpg on a tank, usually closer to 40. My old truck was getting 20.

I'll let you know more precisely in a few months, since I've started using this:

www.mymilemarker.com
TheMercenary • Feb 21, 2008 9:13 pm
It is probably time for some higher gas prices, it will go well with the coming inflation, recession, and foreclosure crisis. It may give those idiots in Congress the stimulus to go after the issues and get something done.
elSicomoro • Feb 21, 2008 9:37 pm
Gas went up this afternoon from $2.799 to $2.989. If it stays up, I'll go through my gas budget before the end of next week.

The Aveo is still calling me...but I'll only take a yellow one.

I heard a story yesterday about why diesel fuel is so expensive and how it will not go down any time soon. But apparently, the US is starting to warm up to it and it will become more popular by the end of the decade.
TheMercenary • Feb 21, 2008 10:43 pm
Yea, I hear they are going to put the Land Rover diesel in the F-150 in 09. It is going to raise the cost by about 8 or 10 grand but the gas mileage is expected to go to the 30's. That would be a good start. Things are going to get much more painful for the next few years.
tw • Feb 21, 2008 11:40 pm
TheMercenary;433994 wrote:
It may give those idiots in Congress the stimulus to go after the issues and get something done.
Solution does not resided in Congress. Problems such as corporate welfare have only made the problem worse. Technology developed in GM in the 1970s, found standard in foreign models in the 1990s; and GM still could not install it in the 2000s? Engines in SUVs using 1960 technology.

Solutions are found only in one fundamental principle - do more work with less energy. Nothing in Congress can fix the problem. Although some Federal regulations did liberate car guys, how many more innovations must be stifled for 10 and 20 years by bean counters? Those are lessons from history.

Those who learn from history would than complain about ethanol - corporate welfare that solves nothing.

Let's see. The US government gave these automakers $100million to develop a hybrid. 12 years later - still no hybrid? Patriotic Americans (with Japanese citizenship) had to do it? I don't see the problem identified and blamed.

An F-150 pickup that could weight less than a Camry has lower gas mileage? Yes. They are not selling to people who meet the definition of patriotic Americans. American patriot wants, works for, and contributes to innovation. We need more work from less energy. We don't need cars that burn 10 gallons of gas while using less than 2 gallons in productive work. Vehicles are that inefficient. What will Congressman do? Pass more laws to protect GM - an anti-American auto company?

From history, gasoline had to rise to $5 per gallon before automakers conceded - started using pre-WWII technologies such as fuel injection - in cars. Costs had to increases that high before bean counters would finally concede that a decades obsolete technology - a carburetor - could finally be replaced.
TheMercenary • Feb 21, 2008 11:42 pm
tw;434046 wrote:
GM - an anti-American auto company


Now that right there is some funny shit. :lol2:
smoothmoniker • Feb 21, 2008 11:56 pm
This will be the year of the consumer diesel cars.
TheMercenary • Feb 22, 2008 12:12 am
I would love to see gas got to $4 a gallon overnight and my truck gets 16 mpg.
tw • Feb 22, 2008 12:27 am
TheMercenary;434047 wrote:
Now that right there is some funny shit. :lol2:
One who may be so anti-American and so anti-free market as to promote "Buy American"? GM cars were so pathetic as to cost more to build than Mercedes. Required more labor. Required two extra pistons and all those other expensive parts to do same as good American cars (ie Toyota). Those are facts with numbers. TheMercenary's proof - an intelligent response? Nothing. He uses mockery to prove his point. Clearly he is not an immigrant.
TheMercenary • Feb 22, 2008 12:32 am
tw;434079 wrote:
One who may be so anti-American and so anti-free market as to promote "Buy American"? GM cars were so pathetic as to cost more to build than Mercedes. Required more labor. Required two extra pistons and all those other expensive parts to do same as good American cars (ie Toyota). Those are facts with numbers.
And why is that Idiot? because the US workers unions made it so. The industry was fucked by the unions, hence they outsourced. Pensions, insurance, required union work conditions have all contributed.
tw • Feb 22, 2008 12:38 am
smoothmoniker;434056 wrote:
This will be the year of the consumer diesel cars.
Mercedes did substantial research in the 1990s onwards to refine a superior diesel. Other manufacturers were pioneering other technologies. In every case, it was about doing more work with less energy. Adapting better to changing loads. A 1960 technology V-8 so common in low performance American products should have and could have been cremated decades ago. That V-8 gasoline engine is a tribute to bean counters doing cost controls. Why do so many pickups and SUVs have these crappy technologies?

Mid 1970 America V-8 engines did maybe 170 Hp. That is what four cylinder engines and smallest V-6s do today where innovation existed. Why does anyone need 200 or 300 Hp engines? Ego? Confidence? Self-esteem? Who are these people? A problem.
tw • Feb 22, 2008 12:55 am
TheMercenary;434081 wrote:
And why is that Idiot? because the US workers unions made it so. The industry was fucked by the unions, hence they outsourced. Pensions, insurance, required union work conditions have all contributed.
More hate? So union workers created all that stifled innovation for 30 years in GM? Did you ever work in a GM plant? I did. How I could get work accomplished? I found a union worker who took the proper attitude (completely with an arm gesture). Problem solved immediately.

Another example: a pipe fitter probably forgot to tighten a fitting. Materials flowed through that pipe until cooling finally created a leak. The room filled with a dangerous gas. Another pipe fitter held his breath, ran in, cut off the flow, and retreated safely. (I asked him if he was crazy.)

Somehow I got called into a meeting by the plant manager. She had maybe 50 people in the room to discuss the event. Obvious from irrelevant questions was that neither she nor her assistants knew even what the material was used for - how the work gets done. She could not ask a single useful question. But a most damning observation? Neither pipe fitter was there. Nobody who knew what happened was present. No problem. She was an MBA. She conducted a meeting. Therefore she had everything under control.

So many people discussing what none knew anything about? Clearly another example of unions destroying America? Yes, where contempt replaces logic.

TheMercenary, how many more will your hate attack? When an adversarial union exists, then look years (decades) earlier for an adversarial management that too often comes from business schools, has no idea how the work gets done, and who must hire more subordinates.

Legacy costs. GM cars cost more due to legacy costs? Reality: the day that union worker requires, those pension funds should be fully funded. But 1990s GM cars had so many more pistons (were so anti-America) that GM management stopped funding those pension funds. Now GM, et al owe $7 billion to the pension funds. GM blames legacy costs. What anti-Americans let GM forget - they stopped funding those pension funds so claim profits in the 1990s. But again, this is blamed completely on the unions - according to TheMercenary. Hate trumps facts?

How was 1981 Ford saved from bankruptcy? First the MBA was removed - Henry Ford. Then Ford eliminated management. 48 layers of management were reduced to 5. No union workers had to be eliminated. Instead, Ford eliminated the only reason for their problems - management. So Ford Motor went from near bankruptcy to record profits between 1981 and 1990.

When unions get blamed as TheMercenary posts, well, the accuser is better replaced by an immigrant – to make a better America.
TheMercenary • Feb 22, 2008 1:04 am
tw;434085 wrote:

When unions get blamed as TheMercenary posts, well, the accuser is better replaced by an immigrant – to make a better America.


May you get what you wish for and may it bankrupt you Idiot.
tw • Feb 22, 2008 1:11 am
TheMercenary;434088 wrote:
May you get what you wish for and may it bankrupt you Idiot.
Why not just call me niger? That is your intent.
TheMercenary • Feb 22, 2008 1:15 am
tw;434094 wrote:
Why not just call me niger? That is your intent.


As I have already stated. I find the term offensive and shall not call you anything but what I find you to be here. Idiot. I know nothing of your origins. Are you an illegal immigrant?
tw • Feb 22, 2008 2:03 am
TheMercenary;434097 wrote:
I find the term offensive and shall not call you anything but what I find you to be here.
Well at least you don't consider me a niger. I was worried you might judge me by the color of my letters.
Undertoad • Feb 22, 2008 12:08 pm
Image
TheMercenary • Feb 22, 2008 12:12 pm
:lol2:
That was the first thing I thought of when he wrote that last night. :D
Flint • Feb 22, 2008 12:15 pm
Undertoad;389499 wrote:
Teh Internet culture. Let me show you it.
HungLikeJesus • Feb 22, 2008 12:53 pm
sycamore;434003 wrote:
Gas went up this afternoon from $2.799 to $2.989. If it stays up, I'll go through my gas budget before the end of next week.

The Aveo is still calling me...but I'll only take a yellow one.

I heard a story yesterday about why diesel fuel is so expensive and how it will not go down any time soon. But apparently, the US is starting to warm up to it and it will become more popular by the end of the decade.


I spent yesterday at a conference on alternative transportation fuels from cellulosic materials.. Speakers included Steve Andrews (co-founder of Association for the Study of Peak Oil), some forestry people, a representative from the Colorado Governor's Energy Office, two US Senators (Salazar and Allard), and others.

They did a pretty good job of convincing me that world oil production is very near the peak, which means that production will level off, then begin to drop, even as demand is increasing.

When this happens gas will get very expensive. I'm seriously considering getting rid of my truck (which gets 18 to 20 mpg), because it won't be worth much when gas gets scarce.
Clodfobble • Feb 22, 2008 6:52 pm
HungLikeJesus wrote:
They did a pretty good job of convincing me that world oil production is very near the peak, which means that production will level off, then begin to drop, even as demand is increasing.


But what's a realistic timeline for that? 3 years? 15 years? More specifically, let's say one is in the market to replace a vehicle in the next few months. Aside from the warm fuzzies one gets from getting a hybrid, right now it is a mathematical fact that hybrid cars do not make up their initial price difference in gas savings unless you drive a lot more than we do. Obviously there will be a tipping point where this will change, but it would be nice to have an idea roughly when that will be. We do tend to drive our cars until every last ounce of usefulness has been gotten out of them (this current replacement is only a necessity because it doesn't have enough seating,) so it's likely we'll still be driving it in ten years.
HungLikeJesus • Feb 22, 2008 6:58 pm
We won't know we've passed the peak until we've been past it for a while (a few years). We may have already passed it, or it could happen between now and 2015. A downturn in world economies will delay it for a time.

Alaska peaked in 1988; it is now producing at half the 1988 levels. North America, Europe and Asia have all peaked. Saudi Arabia is expected to plateau within a few years (Sadad al Husseini).

If you buy an SUV, you can make the peak come sooner.
Clodfobble • Feb 22, 2008 10:14 pm
HungLikeJesus wrote:
Alaska peaked in 1988; it is now producing at half the 1988 levels.


Not counting ANWAR, right?
elSicomoro • Feb 22, 2008 10:20 pm
Based on what I've read about ANWR though, it would only put a mild bump in our supply, depending on how the oil was used.
xoxoxoBruce • Feb 23, 2008 12:13 am
tw;434085 wrote:
So union workers created all that stifled innovation for 30 years in GM?
Despite tw's crazy rants about pre-WWII fuel injection technology being so wonderful, he's right on the money about the unions and their relationship with the manufacturers.

The car company would come to the bargaining table and say, we'll give you a little bit now, but we'll take care of you when you retire. But when the contract was signed, they let the promises become the problem of the management that followed them, when they retired with millions in cash and stock options.

Most of the work rules, on which the companies had plenty of input and agreed to, are enforcement of safety procedures. Many of them are just following federal law that would be ignored without the unions. Even with them, too many people die or are disabled by unsafe work practices in pursuit of the almighty buck.

Chinese workers are cheap and they are dieing by the thousands, to keep walmart rolling in cash.
HungLikeJesus • Mar 10, 2008 6:34 pm
Clodfobble;434351 wrote:
But what's a realistic timeline for that? 3 years? 15 years? More specifically, let's say one is in the market to replace a vehicle in the next few months. Aside from the warm fuzzies one gets from getting a hybrid, right now it is a mathematical fact that hybrid cars do not make up their initial price difference in gas savings unless you drive a lot more than we do. Obviously there will be a tipping point where this will change, but it would be nice to have an idea roughly when that will be. We do tend to drive our cars until every last ounce of usefulness has been gotten out of them (this current replacement is only a necessity because it doesn't have enough seating,) so it's likely we'll still be driving it in ten years.


Gas prices might reach as high $4/gallon this year. I wouldn't expect any thinking person to buy a vehicle that gets less than about 27 miles per gallon, without a really good reason.

I've had my Insight for 5 years this month and have driven it about 44,000 miles. Compared to a car getting 30 miles per gallon, I've saved about 800 gallons. Compared to my Ranger, I've saved about 1800 gallons.

That's not a lot, but I don't really care if gas goes to $8 or $10 per gallon. It just doesn't affect me much anymore.

If you're getting a car that you'll drive for the next 10 years, I think a hybrid will make economic sense, with gasoline at $4/gallon.
BrianR • Mar 10, 2008 10:28 pm
Diesel in Scranton is already at $4.149/gal. I got 149 gallons and the price tag was over $600!

And I'm going to "waste" 12 gallons of it tonight to stay warm.

This is getting out of hand.
Shawnee123 • Mar 11, 2008 10:02 am
I read that they project people are going to finally start saying "that's enough" and drive a whole lot less. I'll believe it when I see it. That's what we can hope for. That is what I think those who say "in my country it's 5000 qwerty a ha' litre or whatever measurements they use, so you should be happy" don't understand. This IS America and we do expect that our government listen to the people who are saying "this is enough when I must choose between feeding my family and gasoline" by boycotting, cutting down, and aggressive feedback.

I don't believe gas prices are on an unavoidable upswing. I do believe that if we get a president (et al) who is (are) not in the pockets of the oil companies we could effect some changes.
HungLikeJesus • Mar 11, 2008 12:25 pm
Shawnee123;437855 wrote:
I read that they project people are going to finally start saying "that's enough" and drive a whole lot less. I'll believe it when I see it. That's what we can hope for. That is what I think those who say "in my country it's 5000 qwerty a ha' litre or whatever measurements they use, so you should be happy" don't understand. This IS America and we do expect that our government listen to the people who are saying "this is enough when I must choose between feeding my family and gasoline" by boycotting, cutting down, and aggressive feedback.

I don't believe gas prices are on an unavoidable upswing. I do believe that if we get a president (et al) who is (are) not in the pockets of the oil companies we could effect some changes.


Shawnee, I wish that were possible, but I don't think that this as a political issue. There is an ever declining amount of oil in the ground, constraints on extraction, shipping and refining, and an increasing world-wide demand.

The only changes that can be instituted to reduce oil prices significantly are those that result in reduction in demand. These could include: greatly improved mass transit, greatly increased vehicle fuel efficiency, rationing, massive recession, and rapid conversion and implementation of alternative fuels.

Some of these options are possible, but not immediate. Conversion to alternative fuels might be possible one day, but this will still require drastic conservation measures - we cannot meet more than 25 to 30% of our current demand using cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel.

Rationing of conventional oil would spur implementation of most of the other options on that list.
Shawnee123 • Mar 11, 2008 12:46 pm
Don't bombard me with facts, Mr Jesus. ;)

Seriously, if it's not a political issue, why is no one in the government addressing this? Why don't we hear on the news, when they interview disgruntled people all the time, someone in the "know" explain to the people why they care but are powerless? Reeks of typical sweeping issues under the rug in hopes that we just go with the flow.

I still think we have an awful lot of folks in the wrong pockets.
Beest • Mar 11, 2008 1:18 pm
I undertsatnd that the reason for current soaring prices is because with dollar being a turd and the financial markets in a tizzy. Investors are buying oil as a commodity. Nothing to do with supply and demand of the actual stuff, just trading to prop up portfolios and 401Ks.
So it is a political problem, if the economy was more stable, these investors wouldn't be switching to oil.

They also said this artificial price bubble could continue to inflate or burst at any time, 6 month price predictions range equally from $30-$150 :eek:
monster • Mar 11, 2008 2:56 pm
BrianR;437774 wrote:

And I'm going to "waste" 12 gallons of it tonight to stay warm.


Do you mean keeping your engine running while you sleep?

If so, wouldn't it be cheaper to rent a room? (And probably more environmentally friendly too) Or do you have to keep the engine running anyway to stop the diesel freezing? Or something?

/nosy
monster • Mar 11, 2008 2:57 pm
(love the technical jargon there, beest.)
lookout123 • Mar 11, 2008 5:07 pm
Seriously, if it's not a political issue, why is no one in the government addressing this?
Um, because it's not a political issue? The only way a politician can affect your cost for fuel is by removing or reducing the taxes on the fuel - something they don't want to consider.
Investors are buying oil as a commodity. Nothing to do with supply and demand of the actual stuff, just trading to prop up portfolios and 401Ks.
Commodities trade on future expectations of price, it is very much a supply and demand issue. Money managers buy and sell anything that is able to be held within a portfolio by their prospectus. It isn't a propping up issue, it's a "where can we make some money?" issue. That is what you pay them for - to make money where they can and hedge losses where they can.
So it is a political problem, if the economy was more stable, these investors wouldn't be switching to oil.
Stable? Recession and price spikes in various asset classes are very much a normal part of the economic cycle. This isn't an accident - it is just part of life. The government shouldn't even try to interfere in markets hoping to prevent indices from dropping - it isn't there job.
Shawnee123 • Mar 11, 2008 5:12 pm
lookout123;437942 wrote:
Um, because it's not a political issue? The only way a politician can affect your cost for fuel is by removing or reducing the taxes on the fuel - something they don't want to consider.


Your sarcasm aside, you can't tell me the politicians aren't usually the first ones to jump up and say " WE DIDN'T DO IT. HE DID IT. LOOK OVER THERE" in response to repeated questions from the people. Or is that directly related to how much bullshit is spewing out their asses?

My point is they don't address it, even to point their pointy little fingers and say they have no control. If they don't have control they would certainly point those pointy little fingers everywhere, thereby addressing it.
HungLikeJesus • Mar 11, 2008 5:14 pm
lookout, if I'm reading your response correctly, the money managers aren't pushing the price up, they're anticipating that the price of oil will increase due to external factors and they're just riding that increase.

Does that mean that they expect the price to go significantly above $110/barrel?
lookout123 • Mar 11, 2008 5:32 pm
What they are trading is the future price of oil. Those contracts have different conditions for time, price, quantity, etc. Some traders will buy at a future price of $110 and turn around and buy another at $90. They're trading options to purchase or sell at set pricepoints. It really is complex. Right now, more people think it will go higher than feel it will go lower.

S123 - Politicians don't get to decide the cost of fuel beyond the amount of tax they slap on it. They talk so that you can hear their voices and feel like they care about you. Right now there are plenty of reasons for them to worm their way into the evening news - the war, the election, peers getting hookers... Wait for the next news cycle slowdown and they'll be concerned with the price of gas again. They'll lay it at the feet of big oil robber barons and forget to mention that the government makes a bigger profit per gallon that the company selling it.
glatt • Mar 11, 2008 5:33 pm
The politicians absolutely have some influence on all of this. It's called leadership, and we don't have any right now.

They control purse strings for research into areas that might spawn new technologies and alternative fuels. They pass or don't pass fuel consumption standard for vehicles. They offer or don't offer tax breaks for purchasing Hummers. They offer or don't offer tax breaks for people who spend money making their homes more energy efficient.

You can either try to increase the supply, which this administration has done by invading Iraq and pushing to open wildlife refuges to drilling.

Or you can try to decrease demand, which this administration has fought at almost every turn, going so far as to give tax breaks to purchasers of Hummers. Remember Jimmy Carter putting on that sweater and telling us he was turning the thermostat in the White House down a few degrees? The government can easily pass laws dictating fuel economy of fleets of vehicles.

Or you can pump money into research of alternative fuels in order to think outside the box. Germany, for example has done this a lot. Many farmers in Germany have planted solar panels in their fields instead of crops because of government programs that make it financially attractive. There are many ideas out there that haven't been tried yet. High altitude kites that have wind turbines on them, buoys in the ocean that harness wave power are two that come to mind. Businesses aren't going to risk trying them until the price of oil justifies it, but then it may be too late. You need governments to kick start programs like this, much like the space race.

You can point to the markets and say that it's all the markets' fault, but the truth is that the government has a hell of a lot of influence here, and they aren't using it wisely. There's no leadership.
lookout123 • Mar 11, 2008 5:45 pm
OK, so we want the government to step up and push money into alt fuel? How? What areas? Who gets the money? How much? Who decides? What benchmark must they hit to receive the money? If something proves viable, who gets to profit? How much? If the price of oil comes down should we quit spending money on something that is more expensive and less efficient than oil? Where is the cutoff?

I'm not saying alt fuel is a pipe dream. I'm not saying it isn't a worthy goal. I'm saying it is more complicated than having a schmoe in a suit say "we need to ween ourselves from foreign oil".

As the price of fossil fuels goes up, alternative energy becomes more attractive and research and testing ramps up. It takes time for new ideas to be explored, tested, approved, and developed to the point that they can go to market with an expectation of profitability. Remember, companies aren't making products because of the warm fuzzy feeling they get. They have to harness new ideas into profitable scenarios before they can bring them to you. Part of the process is preparing for any backlash as well.
New high efficiency light bulbs? Awesome. They are more hazardous when disposed of? damn.
New hybrid cars? Love them! oh, they're more expensive and the manufacturing process vs savings takes 8+ years to offset? Hmmm.

I don't want my government to just throw money at the problem so they look concerned. I fully support a reasonable and rational expenditure that has a reasonable chance of proving effective.
skysidhe • Mar 11, 2008 6:09 pm
Aliantha;433702 wrote:
you know, if you pay $4/gallon, you're still paying less than we do in Australia. Consider yourselves lucky. ;)



ok thanks :)

I'm lucky,I'm lucky. does anyone want to buy an SUV?
HungLikeJesus • Mar 11, 2008 6:22 pm
When the collapse comes, you won't be able to get gas for your SUV, but at least you could live in it.
Shawnee123 • Mar 11, 2008 6:25 pm
lookout123;437955 wrote:
OK, so we want the government to step up and push money into alt fuel? How? What areas? Who gets the money? How much? Who decides? What benchmark must they hit to receive the money? If something proves viable, who gets to profit? How much? If the price of oil comes down should we quit spending money on something that is more expensive and less efficient than oil? Where is the cutoff?

I'm not saying alt fuel is a pipe dream. I'm not saying it isn't a worthy goal. I'm saying it is more complicated than having a schmoe in a suit say "we need to ween ourselves from foreign oil".

As the price of fossil fuels goes up, alternative energy becomes more attractive and research and testing ramps up. It takes time for new ideas to be explored, tested, approved, and developed to the point that they can go to market with an expectation of profitability. Remember, companies aren't making products because of the warm fuzzy feeling they get. They have to harness new ideas into profitable scenarios before they can bring them to you. Part of the process is preparing for any backlash as well.
New high efficiency light bulbs? Awesome. They are more hazardous when disposed of? damn.
New hybrid cars? Love them! oh, they're more expensive and the manufacturing process vs savings takes 8+ years to offset? Hmmm.

I don't want my government to just throw money at the problem so they look concerned. I fully support a reasonable and rational expenditure that has a reasonable chance of proving effective.
bold mine

So you want them to do things completely differently than they've done everything else? ;)
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 6:28 pm
The reason oil prices are up is because the middle east is limiting the supply coming out. That is all.

If and when they remove those limits, prices will go down again unless the oil distributors think they can get away with making more profit and keeping the prices up.
lookout123 • Mar 11, 2008 6:30 pm
So you want them to do things completely differently than they've done everything else?
Very much so. I would love to see a few of them prove to be worthy of the trust we are forced to place in them.
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 6:31 pm
It'd work out at almost $6/gallon over here btw. You're still getting it cheaper than we are, and you don't have the same interest rates on your mortgages that we do.

The average Australian has had to find an extra $100/month to put on their mortgage over the last year. That's about the same amount many families spent on fuel for their car. This new hike in fuel prices is putting real pressure on families all over the world.
Shawnee123 • Mar 11, 2008 6:36 pm
Shawnee123;437855 wrote:
I read that they project people are going to finally start saying "that's enough" and drive a whole lot less. I'll believe it when I see it. That's what we can hope for. That is what I think those who say "in my country it's 5000 qwerty a ha' litre or whatever measurements they use, so you should be happy" don't understand. This IS America and we do expect that our government listen to the people who are saying "this is enough when I must choose between feeding my family and gasoline" by boycotting, cutting down, and aggressive feedback.

I don't believe gas prices are on an unavoidable upswing. I do believe that if we get a president (et al) who is (are) not in the pockets of the oil companies we could effect some changes.


Understandable. We're all in a crunch. But, my point in this quoted post was we are hopeful that this government by, of, and for the people will listen, and act.
lookout123 • Mar 11, 2008 6:36 pm
Someone who started at a $300,000 mortgage with a 5% ARM that has risen to 6.5%, interest only is now paying $375 more per month than they were before the rate increases. 7% = $500. That'll put a hitch in yer giddy'up.
lookout123 • Mar 11, 2008 6:40 pm
Shawnee123;437980 wrote:
Understandable. We're all in a crunch. But, my point in this quoted post was we are hopeful that this government by, of, and for the people will listen, and act.

Act how? What do you want them to do? Nationalize the oil companies and set the prices artificially low? Or should they leave the oil alone and simply step in and say that all mortgages should be dropped to 5.75% interest only so everyone has more cash?

I understand the economic strain that increasing mortgage costs and higher fuel expenses cause - I'm living in the same world you are - but what do you want the government to do?
Shawnee123 • Mar 11, 2008 6:45 pm
ACT. Do something. Say ANYTHING.

I want the government to entertain the things glatt talked about.

I want them to look out on the people and at least have the common decency to shrug their shoulders and look stupid, rather than poo-poo'ing those who want to say something, effectively telling us "it's the economy, stupid, now shut the fuck up and like it."

I'd like them to address the first part of my statement: LISTEN. What comes after listen? Respond, rather than hiding around the corner 'cause you know your redneck cousin is there and she's pissed. ;)
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 6:47 pm
Isn't investing in alternative fuels the best and possibly the only thing the government can do really?

America and other western nations are in the mess they're in because of too much government interferance in the market in the first place. Surely asking them to interfere more could only be a bad thing.
lookout123 • Mar 11, 2008 6:50 pm
Who is saying "shut up and like it"?

Does it really make you sleep better at night when some suit gets in front of a camera, gets misty eyed and says, "we need to help the middle class get cheaper fuel"?

Do you have an easier time paying your bills after a stuffed shirt tells you that Exxon made record profits and they don't think it's fair?

Seriously, saying "anything" and doing "something" doesn't solve anything. What should they do?
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 6:51 pm
What is naive about telling you what's been reported in the news? It's a fact that the middle east is limiting the supply. Google it.

If they remove those limits, there's only two things that could happen. Prices would go down a bit, or oil distributors will leave them at the levels they are now while giving the general public some bullshit story about how they have to keep the prices up.

You explain to me what's wrong with that statement.
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 6:56 pm
Try just plain wrong HLJ.
HungLikeJesus • Mar 11, 2008 6:57 pm
Aliantha;437996 wrote:
Try just plain wrong HLJ.


Sorry Ali. I had deleted that before I saw that you responded to it. I felt bad after I posted it, but you were too quick.
Shawnee123 • Mar 11, 2008 7:00 pm
They say shut the fuck up and like it by never, ever, addressing it.

I forgot I'm out of my league here when it comes to twisting and skirting. I'll go back to trying to be funny. Wish me luck.
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 7:00 pm
There's no need to say sorry if that's what you really think HLJ. If it is what you really think, I'd be curious to know why you think it.
lookout123 • Mar 11, 2008 7:03 pm
I forgot I'm out of my league here when it comes to twisting and skirting.

:bs:

I'm not twisting or skirting anything. You're the one that wants them to do something but you won't tell us what you want them to do. What do you have in mind?
skysidhe • Mar 11, 2008 7:22 pm
HungLikeJesus;437968 wrote:
When the collapse comes, you won't be able to get gas for your SUV, but [COLOR="Sienna"]at least you could live in it[/COLOR].


I'll go pick out my curtains now. I'm think'in
floral if I can afford a crust of bread. Burgundy if I need another trade.
HungLikeJesus • Mar 11, 2008 7:33 pm
Aliantha;438000 wrote:
There's no need to say sorry if that's what you really think HLJ. If it is what you really think, I'd be curious to know why you think it.


Regardless, Ali, there's never an excuse for me to be unkind.

The reality seems to be (and you can find plenty of people who support, and others who reject, this idea) that we are at, or very near, the limit of oil production. If you do a search for "Peak Oil" you can find a lot of this information. This is no longer just a lunatic fringe idea.

This quote is from a Volvo web site "The consumption of energy is increasing all over the world. At the same time, the available resources are declining. "

ASPO probably has the most comprehensive site. I was at a conference recently where Colin Campbell, the founder of ASPO, gave a presentation.

Here's an article from Technology Review from 2005.

There are lots more out there (even on Wikipedia).
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 7:36 pm
Fair enough HLJ, and I happen to agree with your point here. It's why I suggested that if governments are to do anything, it should be to invest in alternative fuels.

I just don't get where in my post I suggested anything about dwindling supplies. I was only addressing one facet of the whole debate and I thought that was fairly clear.

I find on message boards, if you write a whole diatribe people mostly either just ignore it, or they skim it and often miss important bits. Therefore, in general I prefer to discuss one point per post.
tw • Mar 11, 2008 8:19 pm
monster;437900 wrote:
Do you mean keeping your engine running while you sleep?
If so, wouldn't it be cheaper to rent a room?
So many posts want government to fix this problem. Government did which is why things are now solved. This is the solution we wanted.

How many addressed actual reasons for over $100 per barrel? A dollar once bought one Euro. Today it takes over $1.50 to buy the same Euro. That's a 50% increase in oil prices. Where is the post that describes that problem?

Oil prices have returned to 1970s prices. Is oil expensive? Or is everyone so weak and pathetic as to 'hurt' when fair market prices return? Get over it. The cheap and easy 'sweet' oil is gone. We burned it in 8 and 14 MPG (3 and 5 km/liter) Pontiacs. Party is over.

What was posted. The heater (a diesel motor) is running constantly to heat air outside the cab. Little energy actually heats the cab. No problem. Energy is too cheap. We do same in many if not most commercial buildings: only enough insulation to say it is insulated when the building has near zero insulation. Energy is rediculously cheap.

Stupidity does not stop there. Put 10 liters of gasoline in the tank. How many liters actually do any productive work? Most people say 5 or 8. Well government fixed the problem; maintained ignorance. You don't know this answer? Then you are the problem. Reality: because gasoline is so cheap, something between 1 to 2 liters out of ten does any productive work. I have found that most people need that sentence stated again due to ignorance or denial. Only 1 to 2 liters in ten do productive work. Vehicles are that grossly inefficient - as we want them to be.

Where is a post that actually blames the problem? Who is so foolish as to look for solutions in government? Government already solved this problem. Government even mandated ethanol that increases gasoline prices - that can only be shipped from the Mid-west in energy consuming trucks or trains - not in pipelines.

How many are so much part of the problem to have a passenger vehicle with 8 cylinders? If gasoline is so high, then why have largest SUV sales continuously increased these past two years? How many waste even more money buying gas at the discount stations - Hess, Wawa, Sheets, 7-11? All examples of what happens when gasoline prices are still too low.

Learned from history. Gasoline prices only get high enough in America at $5 per gallon or $1.30 per liter. Current gasoline prices here are about $0.85 per liter. Amazing. With gas prices that low, anyone would complain? Well how many stood up when the problem was being created by George Jr - repeatedly. How many so hated America as to ignore the numbers - even believed Saddam had WMDs.

Others here so hated humanity as to buy GM products. Congratulations. Just another example of why gas prices must increase. Chevy owners wanted the "heart attack of America"; said, "Stifle innovation". How many who wanted stifled innovation will then complain about prices?

Let's see. BrainR probably hauls 60,000 pounds with a 350 or 500 Hp engine. How many who complained first looked at their own numbers? 180 or 250 horses to haul a 3,000 pound car. Again, gasoline prices are too low. Brian hauls ten times more weight from the same horse. Or do your eyes glaze over when numbers appear? Very few here have any right to complain about gasoline prices.

Why does the dollar only buy 0.67 Euros? How many so hated America as to also believe Saddam had WMDs. Welcome to the many reasons for higher gasoline prices. Remember, 12 years ago "Project for a New American Century" said that we must secure "OUR" oil. Their solutions to global warming and energy shortages was to lie, invent wars, destroy American relations with the entire world, and then advocate more energy consumption. Now that the world is less stable, all commodities (including oil) must cost more. Gold is now $1000 per oz.

Our government gave us what we wanted. Burn copious quantities of energy to heat open air around a truck cab. We do this because energy is expensive? No problem. The Chinese will finance the debt. "Regean proved that deficits don't matter". Welcome to what happened in the 1960s to create quadrupled gas prices ten years later. Well, it has been 35 years. Those who do not learn from history (or who read UG's books) are doomed to relive history.

That crying is embarrassing. Did you see George Jr lying in 2002 - and not complain then? Do you drive anything with more than 4 cylinders? Did you bitch when our wacko politicians kept gasoline mileage standards excessively low and then gave exemptions to SUVs; also called corporate welfare? What has always been a major solution to Global Warming? Do more work from less energy. Instead, how many choose to deny global warming - advocate less productive work from greater consumption?

Ten liters when only 1 to 2 actually do any productive work. Most energy gets wasted as heat and noise. If you did not know that, then slap yourself for being part of the problem. This complaining has become tiresome.

"When the collapse comes ..."? What collapse. Economics takes revenge. There is no collapse. You simple work more jobs and actually worry every week about the price of milk and meat. Some of the best jobs were moving construction equipment to the docks - to other countries what produced same things using less than have the energy. Deja vue.
tw • Mar 11, 2008 8:27 pm
Aliantha;438009 wrote:
It's why I suggested that if governments are to do anything, it should be to invest in alternative fuels.
Then another posted the facts. There are no alternative fuels. Some of these myths (such as hydrogen) are not even fuels. That 'alternative fuel' myth is another problem created by governement and junk scientists.

Aliantha - again. All this was posted last time. Why do people have so much trouble with facts? Why, after facts are promoted, do some reiterate the myths from politicians? Only solution is doing more work from less energy. That is the only solution for pollution, global warming, energy shortages, etc. Out of ten liters of gasoline - how many acutally move the car? One to two. You did not know that? Alternative fuels are preached by the naive to the naive. Alternative fuels are preached by the same logic that prove Saddam had WMDs. Only solution is found in doing more work from less energy.
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 8:30 pm
Right, so electric solar powered cells aren't worth considering?
tw • Mar 11, 2008 8:40 pm
Aliantha;438021 wrote:
Right, so electric solar powered cells aren't worth considering?
A rain drop does not fill a bucket.
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 8:44 pm
yes well, we can trade all the proverbs you like, but if our civilization is to survive, alternative energy must be developed. Simply telling people to 'use less fossil fuels' is great, but it only prolongs the inevitable outcome because it's a non renewable resource.
tw • Mar 11, 2008 9:13 pm
Aliantha;438024 wrote:
yes well, we can trade all the proverbs you like, but if our civilization is to survive, alternative energy must be developed. Simply telling people to 'use less fossil fuels' is great, but it only prolongs the inevitable outcome because it's a non renewable resource.
Show me the solar cells that will put BrainR's 60,000 pound truck up highway hills? Ideal numbers cannot even approach a solution. Show me the alternative energy source that can make airplanes fly. There is no theoretical technology that can store sufficient energy per pound. Nothing can happen pragmatically until it can first work theoretically. Even those many alternative fuels are actually reapplications of the same energy sources - coal, oil, etc. Just another example of doing more work from less energy.

Ethanol is alternative energy because it comes from corn and the sun? Bull. Massive amounts of petroleum are required to make and truck ethanol. Ethanol is the perfect example of alternative energy - that does not really exist.

Why is BrainR wasting 12 gallons every night to sleep? One way of not using that petroleum is to price it higher so that the same petroleum does more work. Then maybe one gallon does what is currently done by 12. Only with proper (higher) pricing do other (and trivial) energy sources become viable. Even your solar cell solution is not feasible until gasoline goes to $5 per gallon - or maybe higher. If we don't demand more work from the same energy, then those alternatives cannot happen. It's basic economics. Same was demonstrated in the 1970s.

You can speculate all you want. I put those speculations into perspective. A rain drop does not fill a bucket. Even a thunderstorm does not provide enough raindrops. Meanwhile, the problem involves barrels. And here we are discussing buckets. To save barrels, we first need proper energy prices (higher). Only then do we also get raindrops from alternative energy sources.
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 9:21 pm
So what you're saying is, we should all use less oil (great idea) to make the supplies last longer (another great idea) till we can come up with a better means of creating energy (yet another great idea).

Shit tw, that sounds a lot like what I just said.
tw • Mar 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Aliantha;438034 wrote:
Shit tw, that sounds a lot like what I just said.
You forgot the perspective and therefore came to a different conclusion. Your alternative energy concepts are not viable without first addressing the bigger problem - doing more work with less energy.

George Jr said last year that he was increasing funding for all this R&D stuff. A world wide effort to create alternative energy was ITER. What did George Jr do last Dec? He entirely canceled money for that research. That black day was 15 Dec 2007 (if I remember correctly). We must secure our oil (not our future). So any idea of alternative energy from that research (by Americans) is destroyed by those who advocate more consumption. Destroyed by people who cannot value energy when oil is priced so low - when we don't try to do more with less energy - when it is more profitable to increase the weigh of automobiles which was also proposed in Washington early last year.

What makes the energy content of solar cells practical? First we must learn to move BrianR's truck with maybe 1/5th the energy. Of course it is remotely possible. Some fundamental theories even exist to approach that goal. But nothing is in research. Price of energy is too low. If the machine needs so much energy, then trivial energy from alternative fuels get unbudgeted as impractical (ie ITER).

Meanwhile, most every alternative energy source is really only an energy medium - uses existing energy technologies. Most every alternative energy source is not.

How much energy in sunlight? Near zero especially when our machines demand massively more energy. The only 'alternative fuels' that can provide that energy are really nothing more than conventional energy rehyped as 'alternative fuels'.

Until we learn how to do more with less, then alternatives only supply a drop in the bucket. We need machines that no longer need buckets and barrels. We need machines that can work with raindrops - not buckets of energy. Only then do alternatives have practical value. Only then are raindrops from so called 'alternatives' are viable. The solutions to excessive petroleum consumption in the short term only then makes alternative fuels viable in the long term.

Quantum physics research also necessary to accomplish these goals? Guess who has reduced R&D funding, again, in advanced physics research? Spending on things such as financial markets and military budgets is increasing. We must enrich the right people. We must save the world from Saddam Hussein and the evil Iranians. Even John Howard said so; so it must be true.

The real 'alternative fuels' have little value in a world where a machine consumes so much energy. In America, that is more than twice the energy compared to any other industrial nation. No wonder other nations are more interested in alternative fuels. Their machines consume less energy. Their machines do more work for the same energy. Therefore more alternative energy sources are explored. A completely different conclusion once we apply perspective - once we replace sweeping generalizations with perspective.

The irony: alternative fuels - the few that actually are alternative fuels - become practical only after our machines start doing more work with less energy.
Aliantha • Mar 11, 2008 10:08 pm
Well John Howard is no longer in power, so it really doesn't matter what he said now.
monster • Mar 11, 2008 10:13 pm
Hey TW[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]onk[/COLOR]
I didn't realize you were Brian's sock puppet. So, then, you do keep the engine running just to keep you warm while you sleep? Or are there other reasons? Is it cheaper to rent a room in the places where you have to stop or not ? Maybe there are other reasons for needing to stay in your cab? security for example? Please note, I am not passing judgement or complaining, just being nosy, so kindly do me the courtesy of not making assumptions about my opinions on the price of gas. kthxbai. :)
classicman • Mar 11, 2008 11:38 pm
::grenade:: nuclear? ::runs away::
Shawnee123 • Mar 12, 2008 9:39 am
glatt;437948 wrote:
The politicians absolutely have some influence on all of this. It's called leadership, and we don't have any right now.

They control purse strings for research into areas that might spawn new technologies and alternative fuels. They pass or don't pass fuel consumption standard for vehicles. They offer or don't offer tax breaks for purchasing Hummers. They offer or don't offer tax breaks for people who spend money making their homes more energy efficient.

You can either try to increase the supply, which this administration has done by invading Iraq and pushing to open wildlife refuges to drilling.

Or you can try to decrease demand, which this administration has fought at almost every turn, going so far as to give tax breaks to purchasers of Hummers. Remember Jimmy Carter putting on that sweater and telling us he was turning the thermostat in the White House down a few degrees? The government can easily pass laws dictating fuel economy of fleets of vehicles.

Or you can pump money into research of alternative fuels in order to think outside the box. Germany, for example has done this a lot. Many farmers in Germany have planted solar panels in their fields instead of crops because of government programs that make it financially attractive. There are many ideas out there that haven't been tried yet. High altitude kites that have wind turbines on them, buoys in the ocean that harness wave power are two that come to mind. Businesses aren't going to risk trying them until the price of oil justifies it, but then it may be too late. You need governments to kick start programs like this, much like the space race.

You can point to the markets and say that it's all the markets' fault, but the truth is that the government has a hell of a lot of influence here, and they aren't using it wisely. There's no leadership.


lookout123;438003 wrote:
:bs:

I'm not twisting or skirting anything. You're the one that wants them to do something but you won't tell us what you want them to do. What do you have in mind?


Where's the throwing up my hands smilie?

lookout, I don't pretend to know science. I can't sit here and tell you exactly what they should do. That's what they are supposed to be paid for. I can read, and I liked what glatt had to say. I said I think someone should say something, even if it's to tell us we are fools to think that we can ever rely on anything but fossil fuels. I can't go all t-dub on you, or even g-dub, but as a voting American citizen I think we deserve, at the very least, to know wtf is being talked about behind closed doors.

(My sis-in-law worked on Capitol Hill on staff for a Congressman. There are things going on that would make our jaws drop. It's like curing cancer: I bet it can be done, but there's no money in the cure. We must keep big bidness happy, right?)
glatt • Mar 12, 2008 10:20 am
Maybe it's because I have children that this is beginning to bug me so much, but I think we are very near peak production of oil right now. I don't know if we haven't quite reached peak yet, or if we passed it a few years ago. But I do think that it took us about a hundred years to use up about half the oil on Earth. We are using fuel at ever increasing rates, and China is going to increase those rates dramatically. We got 100 years out of the first half of the oil. I bet we use the second half of the oil in 50 years. As the supply dwindles and more and more people are competing for less and less oil, it will get painful real fast. We might only have 25 years of useful oil.

As things stand right now, we don't have any alternatives to replace the fossil fuels. Sure, the selfish and greed driven markets will eventually wake up and see what's coming and begin to really work on this difficult problem but it may be too late then.

What should government do? They should dictate fuel economy for all new vehicles. The SUV loophole has gone unaddressed for too long. They should create huge tax incentives for conserving fuel in other areas, like getting high efficiency utilities in houses and businesses. Those are just two examples, but you get the idea. They should promote/enforce/cajole/dictate conservation.

They should also do everything they can to promote innovation in areas of alternative fuels. Just like it funds the DARPA race for robot vehicle development, I think the government should be very aggressively pushing for alternative fuels. If America discovers the next great fuel technology, maybe we can rule the world again. It's been a while since we have developed a groundbreaking new technology. I mentioned the space race before, and I'm really serious about that. Back in the 60's, the government made putting a man on the moon a priority, and spent a lot of money and a lot of effort organizing that project. The country was behind it. We had a leader then. We need a similar leader now but it should be an energy race. Not a space race.

Lookout asked who should profit from this. I'm not sure how to do that, but the government auctions off its resources and rights all the time. A similar system could be set up.

The one thing we shouldn't do is sit here watching the end of oil coming towards us (from 50 years out) and pretend it isn't happening.

Oh, and a bump in oil prices now because of the low dollar isn't the problem I'm focused on, I'm speaking slightly more long term. A few decades out.
TheMercenary • Mar 12, 2008 11:12 am
Gas just went up to $3.12 a gallon here (reg unleaded). 2 weeks ago it was less than $3, $4 is just around the corner.
Trilby • Mar 12, 2008 11:28 am
Gas here in Dayton---3.45/gal.

I laugh at your SUV, sir. I laugh.
TheMercenary • Mar 12, 2008 11:34 am
I love my truck, I only get 16mpg but it will be a long time before I give it up.
Trilby • Mar 12, 2008 11:40 am
TheMercenary;438178 wrote:
I love my truck, I only get 16mpg but it will be a long time before I give it up.


There's just something women like about a pickup man. :D
tw • Mar 12, 2008 11:58 am
monster;438045 wrote:
So, then, you do keep the engine running just to keep you warm while you sleep? Or are there other reasons? Is it cheaper to rent a room in the places where you have to stop or not ? Maybe there are other reasons for needing to stay in your cab? security for example?
The topic is energy. What you felt that I assumed that you assumed was your feelings on the opinion of gas prices ... funny how others do just that - personalize by reading what never existed. Ok. You were making humor. Or am I assuming that what you felt that I assume that your assumed was your feeling on .... never mind. It uses too much energy.
tw • Mar 12, 2008 12:02 pm
Brianna;438184 wrote:
There's just something women like about a pickup man.
You mean it proves women are smarter than men?
Undertoad • Mar 12, 2008 12:08 pm
tw, in case you don't follow the section, you were mentioned in a thread in Cellar Meta.
xoxoxoBruce • Mar 13, 2008 12:29 am
I got gas at about 10:15 last night, in the ghetto.
It took quite awhile to pump the gas and then answer a bunch of questions about my truck to a deaf guy that was cleaning up trash.
Anyway, the whole time I was there, the line at the window of the glass booth, was from 1 to 4 people deep, buying cigars and individual (not packaged) cigarettes.
Must be a recession.


btw... tonight gas was 10 cents a gallon higher.
Trilby • Mar 13, 2008 8:33 am
tw;438191 wrote:
You mean it proves women are smarter than men?


You're not being emotional in this response, are you?


But, yes, as the song goes: Da Woman is Smartah! :rasta:
classicman • Mar 13, 2008 8:52 am
xoxoxoBruce;438452 wrote:
Anyway, the whole time I was there, the line at the window of the glass booth, was from 1 to 4 people deep, buying cigars and individual (not packaged) cigarettes.


They make "blunts" outta them Bruce.
lookout123 • Mar 13, 2008 11:25 am
He knows that I'm sure. I think he was pointing out that they still have money for luxuries even though the talking heads tell us we're all flat broke and can't get food.
tw • Mar 13, 2008 12:30 pm
lookout123;438517 wrote:
I think he was pointing out that they still have money for luxuries even though the talking heads tell us we're all flat broke and can't get food.
The market for rolling papers must be booming. (don't worry, be happy.)
HungLikeJesus • Mar 13, 2008 7:14 pm
[LEFT]A dentist may decree that oil production increase, and a goose may command that the Great Wall leap into the air.
--New York Times, Jan. 20, 1981
[/LEFT]

[Tip Mug quote - seems appropriate]
HungLikeJesus • Mar 14, 2008 1:37 pm
Here is an interesting article that breaks down how the cost of a gallon of gas is divided.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Who gets rich off $3 gas - who doesn't[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]The guy running the service station makes just a few cents, while crude oil producers take the biggest chunk.[/SIZE][/FONT]

busterb • Mar 14, 2008 10:15 pm
Offshore drilling, Newfoundland. Look at the price per-day of the rig!
ENSCO International Incorporated announced that the Company has entered into a letter of intent from a customer for a drilling contract for ENSCO 8503, an ultra-deepwater
semisubmersible rig currently under construction. The contemplated contract will be for a two-year term, with an option for the customer to extend the contract at mutually agreed rates and term. The aggregate day rate revenue for the two-year term is expected to be approximately $372 million. The base operating rate is $510,000 per day, and the day rate will be subject to adjustment for variances in operating costs from current levels.
BrianR • Mar 15, 2008 5:51 pm
monster;437900 wrote:
Do you mean keeping your engine running while you sleep?

If so, wouldn't it be cheaper to rent a room? (And probably more environmentally friendly too) Or do you have to keep the engine running anyway to stop the diesel freezing? Or something?

/nosy


sorry for the delay, I forgot about this thread.

Yes, I run the main engine while I sleep, for the heat/air cond as well as heating the fuel and keeping the oil warm and also keeping the batteries topped off.

I cannot afford to rent a hotel every night. I only make about $1000/wk. And I still have to eat.

Brian
BrianR • Mar 15, 2008 7:17 pm
monster;438045 wrote:
Hey TW[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]onk[/COLOR]
I didn't realize you were Brian's sock puppet. So, then, you do keep the engine running just to keep you warm while you sleep? Or are there other reasons? Is it cheaper to rent a room in the places where you have to stop or not ? Maybe there are other reasons for needing to stay in your cab? security for example? Please note, I am not passing judgement or complaining, just being nosy, so kindly do me the courtesy of not making assumptions about my opinions on the price of gas. kthxbai. :)


I speak only for myself. As I mentioned earlier, I run my engine for several reasons, chiefly climate control. If I don't sleep well, I'll be tired the next day. Piloting such a large vehicle is challenging enough without adding fatigue to the equation. I don't care what diesel costs: I'm going to stay comfortable. The company pays for the fuel. And who pays the cost of fuel to the company? You do! In the form of higher freight rates and fuel reimbursements to the drivers. That all adds to the retail price of everything you buy or use.

TW: a few corrections. My name is Brian, not brain, although I understand the confusion. Happens all the time. Next, my truck weighs 80,000 lbs gross, not 60. Minor point but let's strive for accuracy here.

Monster, there are a few alternatives to running the main engine. First, there are APUs (Auxiliary Power Units) to supply all the power needs that the truck and I have. There is also shore power (think extension cord) for some rigs. Another option that I use when possible is IdleAire. This system allows me to shut down, save fuel, sleep better and even provides creature comforts. I like this option best as the "green" battery units that Kenworth has do not provide enough power and tend to die after seven or eight hours and our breaks are ten hours long. I have this information from drivers who have this option so no cite.

I do not wish to run my engine but there are no viable options at this time. I do monitor the trade rags for the latest developments in anti-idling technology so I can reduce my idling hours.

Brian
tw • Mar 15, 2008 9:47 pm
BrianR;439033 wrote:
I do not wish to run my engine but there are no viable options at this time. I do monitor the trade rags for the latest developments in anti-idling technology so I can reduce my idling hours.
That again demonstrates my point. Oil prices are so low that truck lots are full of idling diesels. We all waste energy, in part, because useful or efficient solutions are not available. We also know from history that many American companies develop and stifle innovation. Intentional conspiracy? No. Most often reason is management that either stifle innovation in the name of cost controls, or uses spread sheets rather than science as a decision tool.

As Sculley noted when he was stifling innovation at Apple, every time he had the computer industry figured out, the industry had already changed. He had no idea what innovation was. He was ‘top dog’ because he was an MBA - not an innovator. What does it take to drive out such problems? Recession, sometimes only bankruptcy, or public outcry about people stifling innovation. However, as demonstrated here, that is not happening. Therefore prices must increase to force innovation.

$3 per gallon gasoline is not expensive enough. Largest SUV sales actually increased. From the 1970s, it took $5 per gallon gas to force some companies (ie GM) to liberate their innovators.


BTW, at 80,000#, do constraints exist in certain mid-west states?
Undertoad • Mar 15, 2008 10:18 pm
How much fuel is burned idling? The only job it has to do is provide heat and probably, what, 500 watts of electricity. Traditionally if you want that much electricity someplace... you use a portable generator. If B goes to a hotel they have to heat an entire room and use much more energy up to get that room booked... which is in turn one reason it's more expensive there.
tw • Mar 15, 2008 10:35 pm
Undertoad;439061 wrote:
How much fuel is burned idling? The only job it has to do is provide heat and probably, what, 500 watts of electricity.
The numbers: 12 gallons of diesel burned overnight would be about 500 kilowatt-hours of electricity. IOW same energy would costs about $70 to heat a room electrically. How much does it cost to heat a whole house electrically only at night? $2200 per month? Of course not. Maybe one tenth that amount. But that is how much energy would be wasted idling overnight to keep warm.
TheMercenary • Mar 18, 2008 3:44 pm
Undertoad;439061 wrote:
How much fuel is burned idling? The only job it has to do is provide heat and probably, what, 500 watts of electricity. Traditionally if you want that much electricity someplace... you use a portable generator. If B goes to a hotel they have to heat an entire room and use much more energy up to get that room booked... which is in turn one reason it's more expensive there.

There are a number of places that have started a system of climate control truck stop hook ups. Problem is there is not enough of them.

http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=12760

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060424180213.htm

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/mar/11/transporting-gets-pricey/
BrianR • Mar 19, 2008 12:21 am
tw;439056 wrote:
BTW, at 80,000#, do constraints exist in certain mid-west states?


No. Not exactly. The national maximum gross weight is 80,000 lbs.

Some states regulate axle weight however.

The information is found in a table at the front of any decent trucker atlas.

Brian
Back to Forum | Back to Top