05/07/01: Gas Price All Time High

[Freakapotimus]

Monday May 07 08:39 AM EDT

Gasoline Hits All-Time High... Sort Of
By ABCNEWS.com

Gas prices have reached an all-time high of $1.76 per gallon, but that falls a dollar short of the record when adjusted for inflation.

Gas prices have reached an all-time high, with the national average hitting $1.76 per gallon - four cents per gallon higher than the record set last June, and up almost nine cents from two weeks ago.But adjusted for inflation, that price falls a buck short of the real record, set in March 1981. In fact, the latest numbers may even be good news.

"The good news is that the price increases have slowed," said analyst Trilby Lundberg. "This is because the tightness in supply has somewhat alleviated."

The latest Lundberg Survey finds prices are higher in Chicago, where a gallon of regular unleaded averages $2.02, and lowest in Atlanta, where motorists fork over an average of $1.46 per gallon.

New Anti-Smog Formulas Take the Rap

Lundberg traced the price increases to regional differences.

"Prices went up about 13 cents in the Midwest and much smaller amounts everywhere else," she said. "Mostly, higher prices happened in the Midwest and the West because of our special formulations to prevent smog."

But motorists on the West Coast are having a hard time seeing the so-called silver lining in the price-hike cloud.

"I remember when gas used to be 39 cents a gallon," lamented Miriam Moskowitz. "Ha ha."

"My car is supposed to take premium, but it hasn't seen premium in a long time," said Los Angeles driver Jujuan Bolding.

Bolding said she was considering an SUV to accommodate her growing family. But that idea's been put on hold.

"I'm going to keep my small car at least to the end of the year and see what happens," she said.

Tricks to Save Money

Some find themselves using more gas to buy cheaper gas, like Sandy Bell of Los Angeles.

"I was going to the other side of down, got a few bucks just to get enough in my gas tank," said Bell. "It was about another six or seven cents more, then when I could come here, this seems to be the lowest, then I filled up my tank."

Others are switching to regular from premium.

"Every fifth fill-up, I'll do the good stuff," said Ed Jaworski. "It used to be every one."

[Pantomime-Horse]

That's it, I'm starting my backyard Bio-fuel research, although I don't drive, Petrol was $1.10 a litre in my town earlier, it's currently $1.01 a litre, if the US is at an all time high my town/region could expect $1.20 a litre, one US Galon= 3.9 litres so that'd be $4.68 a Galon.

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 5/8/01 05:51 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote: That's it, I'm starting my backyard Bio-fuel research, although I don't drive, Petrol was $1.10 a litre in my town earlier, it's currently $1.01 a litre, if the US is at an all time high my town/region could expect $1.20 a litre, one US Galon= 3.9 litres so that'd be $4.68 a Galon.

I'm off work tomorrow, unless I get a call up, I might make a big Fuel/Energy post.

[Freakapotimus]

At 5/8/01 10:16 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote: I'm off work tomorrow, unless I get a call up, I might make a big Fuel/Energy post.

Sounds like a plan. I'm interested in hearing more about those prices in your area. I'm also thinking of looking into this more; besides inflation, I really haven't found a solid cause for rising prices.

[Perdix]

At 5/8/01 10:51 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

At 5/8/01 10:16 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote: I'm off work tomorrow, unless I get a call up, I might make a big Fuel/Energy post.

Sounds like a plan. I'm interested in hearing more about those prices in your area. I'm also thinking of looking into this more; besides inflation, I really haven't found a solid cause for rising prices.

I want an electric car, or a better public transportation system.

[Freakapotimus]

At 5/8/01 05:19 PM, Perdix wrote: I want an electric car, or a better public transportation system.

SEPTA were threatening a strike not that long ago (last strike was Summer 1998) and now they are talking of raising the base fare for $2 (last fare hike was 1992 from $1.50 to $1.60). So yes, I would also like better public trans.

[ToonHole]

I live in California and gas prices are highest here. Hmmm, it's about $2.00 a gallon right now. gah. it's supposed to reach $3.00 over summer...

[cableshaft]

$1.80 here. I put 10 bucks in it when it was at 1/4 of a tank and it went up to half a gallon... so 1/4 of a notch. I remember the 'good ol' days' when it was 97 cents a gallon, like a year and a half ago, when 10 bucks would fill up my tank...now I cry whenever I see my tank near the 'E' mark...

I say scientists find a way to eliminate cars. They need to put more research into Bullet Trains and Teleportation. Roads should be torn down, and floating cars with built in generators need to take over. Isaac Newton said we'd have these floaty cars by the year 2000, SCIENCE IS SLACKIN'!

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 5/8/01 05:19 PM, Perdix wrote:

At 5/8/01 10:51 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

At 5/8/01 10:16 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote: I'm off work tomorrow, unless I get a call up, I might make a big Fuel/Energy post.

Sounds like a plan. I'm interested in hearing more about those prices in your area. I'm also thinking of looking into this more; besides inflation, I really haven't found a solid cause for rising prices.

I want an electric car, or a better public transportation system.

The better public transport system is more viable, the electric car will have a range less than 250km(156.25miles), will have a maximum speed no greater than 100km/h(60mph), will sacriface all storage space for batteries & would take 6 hours or more to fully charge once it runs flat.

[Pantomime-Horse]

1) They need to put more research into Bullet Trains 2) and Teleportation.

3)Roads should be torn down, and floating cars with built in generators need to take over.
4)Isaac Newton said we'd have these floaty cars by the year 2000, SCIENCE IS SLACKIN'!

1)Agreed, perhaps later I can show you all roughly how they work, although electricity still has to come from somewhere & it will need to be immense.

2)Theoretically possible but not quite like in Star Trek, likely to be several centuries away, You won't be able to just teleport anywhere, you'll only be able to teleport from one teleporter to another, if several manufacturers make them you'de hope they standardise things like the transfer code, The way it works is that you step into the machine, the machine vapourises you while at the same time collecting information about your atomic make up, it transmits this information to the machine at you destination, this machine has like a big tank full of all the elements things are made of, using the information sent to it it rebuilds you, what it builds won't technically be you, it'll be a brand new copy of you that thinks it's you & the original all previous you will infact be gone forever, nothing but vapour.

3) that's not nearly as good as it sounds, to make something hover or fly takes alot of fuel or power, it always will cars will be a great deal more efficiant if they stay ground based, also a machine is never completely reliable, we don't want cars just dropping out of the sky, a hover vehicle would be unable to tow anything behind it either.

4) you're just making that up, Sir Isaac Newton made no predictions & he certainley didn't even know what a car was, if anything the work of Sir Isaac Newton & those who came after him will back up the in practicallity & in effeciency of such vehicles.

[ToonHole]

At 5/9/01 07:22 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote: 2)Theoretically possible but not quite like in Star Trek, likely to be several centuries away, You won't be able to just teleport anywhere, you'll only be able to teleport from one teleporter to another, if several manufacturers make them you'de hope they standardise things like the transfer code, The way it works is that you step into the machine, the machine vapourises you while at the same time collecting information about your atomic make up, it transmits this information to the machine at you destination, this machine has like a big tank full of all the elements things are made of, using the information sent to it it rebuilds you, what it builds won't technically be you, it'll be a brand new copy of you that thinks it's you & the original all previous you will infact be gone forever, nothing but vapour.

i'm not sure that's correct. i think there is another more effective way of transportation...

steven hawking came up with the 10 (or some damn number) string theory which states that there are something like 10 dimensions. so far, einstein has discovered the fourth dimension to be time. steven hawking supposedly has found the math to suggest there are 10 dimensions. anyway, here is my idea of transportation.

there are these things called wormholes, which is a tear in time (the fourth dimension) i believe. these take great energy to open up. i think nuclear bombs rip wormholes into the fourth dimension when they explode or something... so energy equal to about that would be needed. of course, this type of energy will be harnessable (new word) in the future i believe, but not yet so it is not possible. anyway, if we can exist in the 5th dimension (which we haven't tried yet), then we could pass through these wormholes (which are rips in time). by ripping time, we can go from one place to another, without any time passing. so we would have to minipulate where these wormholes open on both ends according to where you'd like to go.

i'm kinda shaky on this subject... but i don't think we'd vaporize each other and send the information to be built again. that has the possibilities for great error. and what would rebuilt you? you'd also need all the materials to build people in that machine (because last time a checked, you can't reproduce a human out of plain air), hence inefficient. because in these wormholes, you would never change your body around in any way. you'd just go one place to another.

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 5/9/01 08:15 AM, NOFX wrote:
there are these things called wormholes, which is a tear in time (the fourth dimension) i believe. these take great energy to open up. i think nuclear bombs rip wormholes into the fourth dimension when they explode or something... so energy equal to about that would be needed. of course, this type of energy will be harnessable (new word) in the future i believe, but not yet so it is not possible. anyway, if we can exist in the 5th dimension (which we haven't tried yet), then we could pass through these wormholes (which are rips in time). by ripping time, we can go from one place to another, without any time passing. so we would have to minipulate where these wormholes open on both ends according to where you'd like to go.

i'm kinda shaky on this subject... but i don't think we'd vaporize each other and send the information to be built again. that has the possibilities for great error. and what would rebuilt you? you'd also need all the materials to build people in that machine (because last time a checked, you can't reproduce a human out of plain air), hence inefficient. because in these wormholes, you would never change your body around in any way. you'd just go one place to another.

Wormholes are not to do with teleporting, Wormholes are more or less 2 blackholes that are joined together, they are very unstable, in any case you need a vehicle to travel through those, ie: Starship, a wormhole can't transport you places within the same solar system & also with a wormhole you don't actually know where the other side goes.

Back to the Teleporters, I already stated that the machines would have stores of resources, I'll assume they are supposed to be acquired from the people or objects that get sent from that machine in order to be reused when someone or something is sent to that machine.

[Slizor]

Your both wrong. Wormholes are areas where space overlaps with itself and they would be smaller than a atoms nuclus apparently. thats according to recent science, its probably different now

[Perdix]

At 5/9/01 11:48 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Your both wrong. Wormholes are areas where space overlaps with itself and they would be smaller than a atoms nuclus apparently. thats according to recent science, its probably different now

You are thinking of that cosmic foam (or whatever it is called) that exists between matter, although it is supposed to be used in the creation of wormholes.

Pantomime: I wouldn't mind having an electric car with such defeciencies, except for very rare occasions, I don't need to travel distances more than 20 miles.

[cableshaft]

Um, I meant Isaac Asimov... I said Isaac Newton, but I meant that Asimov guy... hehe, sorry... I remember reading the article about his prediction, or writing about it in stories, or something, about 8 years ago though... obviously don't remember the specifics but I know it said he predicted floating cars by the year 2000...

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 5/9/01 11:48 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Your both wrong. Wormholes are areas where space overlaps with itself and they would be smaller than a atoms nuclus apparently. thats according to recent science, its probably different now

My explanation was straight from Hawkings' voice box.

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 5/9/01 01:53 PM, cableshaft wrote: Um, I meant Isaac Asimov... I said Isaac Newton, but I meant that Asimov guy... hehe, sorry... I remember reading the article about his prediction, or writing about it in stories, or something, about 8 years ago though... obviously don't remember the specifics but I know it said he predicted floating cars by the year 2000...

The thing is that Asimov is a science Fiction writer, & robotics was the area where he had the greatest level of accuracy & even then he greatly exagerated how quickley it would advance.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

I wonder if our "unbias" president will do something about this "crisis"!?

Bush has more stock in the oil business than anybody here has messages on this BBS! He's sure as HELL not gonna make a difference.

Crisis? 'fraid not! He have plenty of oil, but TEXACO, Bush, and all the other oil "monguls" found a way to make money! It's all a big conspiracy I tell you! (Yes I am paranoid...)

[ToonHole]

At 5/10/01 05:59 PM, GameboyCC wrote: I wonder if our "unbias" president will do something about this "crisis"!?

Bush has more stock in the oil business than anybody here has messages on this BBS! He's sure as HELL not gonna make a difference.

Crisis? 'fraid not! He have plenty of oil, but TEXACO, Bush, and all the other oil "monguls" found a way to make money! It's all a big conspiracy I tell you! (Yes I am paranoid...)

do you wear foil on your head like i do? hell, i even wear it under my pants.

[Pantomime-Horse]

I find i awfully strange that Australian fuel prices are linked to the rest of the world, Australia is a big Mineral Resource nation, Australia produced enough petrol to be completely self-suficient for Fuel Oils, I don't know why America's price should effect us.

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 5/10/01 06:53 PM, NOFX wrote:

At 5/10/01 05:59 PM, GameboyCC wrote: I wonder if our "unbias" president will do something about this "crisis"!?

Bush has more stock in the oil business than anybody here has messages on this BBS! He's sure as HELL not gonna make a difference.

Crisis? 'fraid not! He have plenty of oil, but TEXACO, Bush, and all the other oil "monguls" found a way to make money! It's all a big conspiracy I tell you! (Yes I am paranoid...)

do you wear foil on your head like i do? hell, i even wear it under my pants.

Foil? It's like a 2nd skin to me!

[Pantomime-Horse]

I know I said my fuel/energy post would be here a while ago, I promise It will be here soon, I need to do research, I'll also have to type it up else where in 600 word blocks to be posted seperately, it'll be a big post, requiring 3 accounts to post the lot.

[kurten]

Can't we all just riot? If prices even touch $4 in America I'm sure there will be several riots. I can't wait to get me some looted stuff.

[Mos]

At 5/9/01 08:25 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 5/9/01 08:15 AM, NOFX wrote:
there are these things called wormholes, which is a tear in time (the fourth dimension) i believe. these take great energy to open up. i think nuclear bombs rip wormholes into the fourth dimension when they explode or something... so energy equal to about that would be needed. of course, this type of energy will be harnessable (new word) in the future i believe, but not yet so it is not possible. anyway, if we can exist in the 5th dimension (which we haven't tried yet), then we could pass through these wormholes (which are rips in time). by ripping time, we can go from one place to another, without any time passing. so we would have to minipulate where these wormholes open on both ends according to where you'd like to go.

i'm kinda shaky on this subject... but i don't think we'd vaporize each other and send the information to be built again. that has the possibilities for great error. and what would rebuilt you? you'd also need all the materials to build people in that machine (because last time a checked, you can't reproduce a human out of plain air), hence inefficient. because in these wormholes, you would never change your body around in any way. you'd just go one place to another.

Wormholes are not to do with teleporting, Wormholes are more or less 2 blackholes that are joined together, they are very unstable, in any case you need a vehicle to travel through those, ie: Starship, a wormhole can't transport you places within the same solar system & also with a wormhole you don't actually know where the other side goes.

Actually, a wormhole is a blackhole and a whitehole joined together. Theoriodically, you fall into the black hole and pop out the white hole. Of course, that would never happen, since whiteholes can not happen in nature.

[KaneOfNod]

At 5/9/01 07:22 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

3)Roads should be torn down, and floating cars with built in generators need to take over.

Umm...people here have enough trouble on flat terrain. Give them 3-D vehicles? AHAAAHHAh.

My opinion may be skewed by the fact that I live in New Jersey.

[Pantomime-Horse]

At 5/13/01 02:11 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 5/9/01 07:22 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

3)Roads should be torn down, and floating cars with built in generators need to take over.

Umm...people here have enough trouble on flat terrain. Give them 3-D vehicles? AHAAAHHAh.

My opinion may be skewed by the fact that I live in New Jersey.

Cableshaft said the floaty cars bit, not I.

[KaneOfNod]

At 5/13/01 07:00 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 5/13/01 02:11 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 5/9/01 07:22 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

3)Roads should be torn down, and floating cars with built in generators need to take over.

Umm...people here have enough trouble on flat terrain. Give them 3-D vehicles? AHAAAHHAh.

My opinion may be skewed by the fact that I live in New Jersey.

Cableshaft said the floaty cars bit, not I.

Oopsies.

[Freakapotimus]

At 5/13/01 02:11 AM, KaneOfNod wrote: Umm...people here have enough trouble on flat terrain. Give them 3-D vehicles? AHAAAHHAh.

My opinion may be skewed by the fact that I live in New Jersey.

I hate when NJ drivers come into Philadelphia. Grrr!!! Then again, I have most Philly drivers in Philly. Um, nevermind, all drivers in Philadelphia suck ass. Although I go over to NJ to get gas in the car. It's at least 15 cents cheaper per gallon over there.

[KaneOfNod]

At 5/14/01 10:44 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

At 5/13/01 02:11 AM, KaneOfNod wrote: Umm...people here have enough trouble on flat terrain. Give them 3-D vehicles? AHAAAHHAh.

My opinion may be skewed by the fact that I live in New Jersey.

I hate when NJ drivers come into Philadelphia. Grrr!!! Then again, I have most Philly drivers in Philly. Um, nevermind, all drivers in Philadelphia suck ass. Although I go over to NJ to get gas in the car. It's at least 15 cents cheaper per gallon over there.

Well, I'm from New York originally (Port Jefferson, Long Island), so hopefully I don't have the NJ Driver gene.

[Freakapotimus]

Makeup of gas tied to markup
By Seth Borenstein

INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Debate is brewing not just on the markup of gasoline prices, but also on the makeup of gasoline itself. The eventual decision on gas ingredients will affect how much people pay at the pump and the air they breathe.

The Bush administration and oil industry say the large number of "boutique" fuels in the United States, blended to meet air-quality standards of different cities, makes gas supplies low and prices high, so they are calling for fewer blends.

And although the Bush administration may want to ease environmental regulations, other groups are looking to do more. Last week, two environmental groups and the states of New York and Connecticut filed a lawsuit to reduce carcinogens in gasoline. And Sens. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and Robert C. Smith (R., N.H.) introduced a bill to remove a substance that cleans gasoline but taints water supplies.

"People had taken good old-fashioned gasoline for granted. . . . Thankfully, not anymore," said Jason Grumet, executive director of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a consortium of eight state air regulators based in Boston.

Don Zinger, assistant director of transportation and air quality at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said the EPA could not control the price of gasoline, but it could control content.

The EPA is requiring that 90 percent of the sulfur be removed from gasoline in 2004, with diesel fuel getting rid of most sulfur by 2006. Sulfur hinders the way catalytic converters reduce emissions.

But the oil industry may not be able to get the sulfur out of diesel fuel in time, and this could cause shortages for trucks, said Ed Murphy, who manages refineries and marketing issues for the American Petroleum Institute.

The examination of gasoline's composition intensified this year, when the oil industry and the Bush administration's energy report said 15 blends in the nation were too many. They said these blends required different storage tanks and formulas and reduced refining capacity.

Making fewer blends would significantly reduce gas prices for next summer, Murphy said. The cost of making these special fuels is a few pennies, but it also reduces the flexibility and capacity of refineries, and that could reach more than a dime in costs, he said. The Bush energy policy, issued this month, echoes that idea, calling on the EPA to make the fuel distribution system more flexible.

Murphy blames the 1990 Clean Air Act, which for the first time required a clean gas - called reformulated gas - to be used in smog-prone areas, which is where 30 percent of Americans live.

But EPA officials, state air regulators and environmental groups say the fault actually lies with the industry. The EPA and environmental groups asked for a single clean fuel for the entire nation, but it was the oil industry that lobbied to have it limited to smoggy areas.

On Thursday, environmental groups and New York and Connecticut officials sued the EPA to force the agency to abide by requirements in the Clean Air Act to cut back the amount of toxins, such as benzene and formaldehyde, coming from cars and trucks. They criticized a March standard issued by the EPA - but written by the Clinton administration - as doing nothing but capping toxin emissions at current levels.

The EPA's Zinger said other vehicle-emission rules included taking the sulfur out of gasoline and diesel fuel, and were already removing toxins, so there was no violation of the Clean Air Act. EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn said benzene and formaldehyde levels were down 65 percent and 69 percent, respectively. And industry has gone beyond what the EPA has asked, Murphy and Zinger said.

Smoggy cities that are forced to use the reformulated gasoline, mostly on the Northeast coast, and in parts of California, Texas and the Chicago area, actually have less toxic risk than cities with cleaner air, Grumet said. That's because even though the clean gas was designed to cause less smog, it also has far fewer carcinogens.

The reformulated gasoline reduces toxic pollutants by 24,000 tons a year in those smoggy areas and cuts cancer risk by 19 percent, according to the EPA.

Murphy said reformulated gasoline added seven or eight cents to the price of a gallon - the EPA put it at four to six cents - and consumers in places like Montana did not need it and should not pay the higher price. The emissions problem is not with toxins but population density, he said.

"The best way to cut back on benzene is to use oxygenates like ethanol," said Monte Shaw, spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a trade association for the ethanol industry.

But oxygenates - which dilute gasoline's toxins with oxygen - are also a problem because the chemical MTBE, the most common oxygenate on the East and West Coasts, also is tainting water supplies.

Sens. Reid and Smith introduced a bill to remove the requirement that reformulated gasoline include oxygenates, but still require them to be clean. California and 10 other states have banned MTBE.

Also, on Wednesday, environmental groups petitioned the EPA to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide - the chief cause of global warming - from cars and trucks. The carbon comes from the burning of gasoline because gas is carbon-based. And this is tied directly to fuel efficiency: The more fuel-efficient a car, the less carbon dioxide it spews.

Seth Borenstein's e-mail address is [e-mail].

© Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.