Cheap Gas?

[ChronicLoad]

The Drudge Report ran a story that claims gas could reach twelve dollars a gallon before rationing takes place. I really don't care about global warming and all that, but I am pretty greedy with my money. So whats the solution and who is sponsoring it???

[slowerthenb4]

developing Africa. The oil thats found in South America is dwarfed by the many untapped huge fields found or prospected in many of the countries in Africa.

that and switchgrass. new cellulose digesting enzyme that can make alcohol out of native prairie grass grown almost everywhere, including the desert. gets rid of the conflict of corn for food or gas as well.

[Slizor]

The (American) solution is to move away from the ridiculous levels of oil consumption by promoting more fuel efficient cars, increasing taxes on oil to a level similar to the rest of the developed world, fundamentally reorganising cities based on the concept of urban sprawl and investing in public transport. Essentially, America has been living beyond its means (in domestic oil production) for many years now and it really needs to solve its addiction to oil.

[slowerthenb4]

living beyond our means, that oil has fueled our economy too not just our SUV's. The reason the US has the ethos it does is because of savvy handling of oversea oil assets.

the taxation of fuel would just burden the American economy further and promote bloated government spending.

renewable fuel substitutes is where its at.

[bcdemon]

To bad it had nothing to with no new refineries being built in the last 25 years. Like, could you imagine what would happen if the population and fuel demand grew over a 25 year slot but refineries never expanded to meet/match the demand?

Crazy I tell ya.

[Slizor]

living beyond our means, that oil has fueled our economy too not just our SUV's.

There has been huge inefficency in the use of oil that has left significant weaknesses in the US economy. The US currently consumes about 70% more energy per capita than any other developed nation, which has now left it reliant on imported oil for over half of its consumption needs.

The reason the US has the ethos it does is because of savvy handling of oversea oil assets.

Erm...no. It's more to do with the huge historical endowment of oil that the US developed off the back of, the weakness of Congress in standing up to sectional interests, the physical size of America and the extraordinary power of the oil lobby. All these have created a unsustainable American petrosociety that would prefer to attempt to continue to feed its addiction (as President Bush called it) rather than deal with it.

the taxation of fuel would just burden the American economy further and promote bloated government spending.

The taxation of fuel would drive home the reality that a sustainable economy can not be built on an unsustainable fuel - it will promote the creation of a sustainable American economy and society which would set the US in good sted for the future.

renewable fuel substitutes is where its at.

It's really not. Putting aside the other issues, such as food security, there would have to be a huge commitment to using and producing biofuels that would also require significant infrastructure changes and investment.

[ChronicLoad]

At 5/22/08 07:35 AM, Slizor wrote: Essentially, America has been living beyond its means (in domestic oil production) for many years now and it really needs to solve its addiction to oil.

That really is the problem. We have built a majority of our infrastructure around the notion of cheap oil. Some of your solutions are just not feasible. Many of our cities are in a budget crisis right now... there is no way they can completly revamp their public trans system! And to try to rebuild? Not going to happen. Imagine all the oil that would be consumed just to make one sprawling city more like tokyo.

Also, many people can not afford to purchase a new vehicle. The article was talking about 15 dollar a gallon gas in the next 2 to 5 years. The changes you are talking about will take generations.

Finally, to just quit driving so much is difficult when our country has been doing it for so long. Its like switching from internet porn to a Victorias Secret catalog. I think people will stop driving when it gets to that point though.

[Slizor]

That really is the problem. We have built a majority of our infrastructure around the notion of cheap oil. Some of your solutions are just not feasible. Many of our cities are in a budget crisis right now... there is no way they can completly revamp their public trans system! And to try to rebuild? Not going to happen. Imagine all the oil that would be consumed just to make one sprawling city more like tokyo.

I'm fully aware that its not going to happen for three reasons. Firstly, there is no political will to revamp the ideology that dominates the US (mass-consumer Capitalism) and a lack of understanding that a non-renewable resource is not a sound basis for an economy in the long term. Secondly, there is the problem of the decentralised US state and the seperation of powers between the states and the federal government. Thirdly, there is the oil lobby, who will continue in their policy of increasing domestic US oil consumption.

Feasibility is a different matter. Budget crises can be overcome by political will or by creating a non-half-arsed welfare state. Either would free up money for a revival of US public transport systems.
As for urban sprawl, communities can be reoriented to being more local. Granted, it's harder than it sounds and dealing with it will take a lot of time, but it is possible.

Also, many people can not afford to purchase a new vehicle. The article was talking about 15 dollar a gallon gas in the next 2 to 5 years. The changes you are talking about will take generations.

An almost complete change in the carstock can happen in around 20 years. I think I read that in the Cheney Report.

Finally, to just quit driving so much is difficult when our country has been doing it for so long. Its like switching from internet porn to a Victorias Secret catalog. I think people will stop driving when it gets to that point though.

All it needs is a political will and available alternatives to driving.

[slowerthenb4]

At 5/22/08 09:21 AM, Slizor wrote:

living beyond our means, that oil has fueled our economy too not just our SUV's.

There has been huge inefficency in the use of oil that has left significant weaknesses in the US economy. The US currently consumes about 70% more energy per capita than any other developed nation, which has now left it reliant on imported oil for over half of its consumption needs.

true but considering our physical girthyness given the other countries on the list petite nature i would say that remains a fairly bloated charge.

- - - UK
total: 244,820 sq km
land: 241,590 sq km
water: 3,230 sq km
note: includes Rockall and Shetland Islands
roadways: 388,008 km
pop.60,943,912 (July 2008 est.)
oil consumption 1.82 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
GDP = $2.147 trillion
- - - US
total: 9,826,630 sq km
land: 9,161,923 sq km
water: 664,707 sq km
note: includes only the 50 states and District of Columbia
roadways: 6,430,366 km
pop.303,824,646
oil consumption 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
GDP = $13.86 trillion

The reason the US has the ethos it does is because of savvy handling of oversea oil assets.

Erm...no. It's more to do with the huge historical endowment of oil that the US developed off the back of, the weakness of Congress in standing up to sectional interests, the physical size of America and the extraordinary power of the oil lobby. All these have created a unsustainable American petrosociety that would prefer to attempt to continue to feed its addiction (as President Bush called it) rather than deal with it.

(manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts) 22.6% of our economy with $1.14 trillion in yearly exports.

the taxation of fuel would just burden the American economy further and promote bloated government spending.

The taxation of fuel would drive home the reality that a sustainable economy can not be built on an unsustainable fuel - it will promote the creation of a sustainable American economy and society which would set the US in good sted for the future.

renewable fuel substitutes is where its at.

It's really not. Putting aside the other issues, such as food security, there would have to be a huge commitment to using and producing biofuels that would also require significant infrastructure changes and investment.

http://www.genencor.com/cms/connect/gene ncor/media_relations/news/frontpage/gen_
pressrelease_413_en.htm
"Joint Venture Combines Companies' Strengths in the Development and Deployment of Second Generation Ethanol from Non-Food Feedstocks to Address $75 Billion Market Opportunity"

SWiSH. lol

[ABsoldier17]

Yeah that makes sense... shoot ourselves in the foot to show the big mean oil companies that we don't want one of the most efficient burning fuels ever to be found. Are we too dependant on foreign oil? Sure, but that's because we haven't built new refineries in 25 years, we've decreased exploration, hell lets face it, we stopped tapping the natural resources of our country. Dammit, ANWAR has a million barrel a day capacity!! Why didn't we tap that ten years ago (another reason to hate Clinton). The Rocky Mountains are loaded, California has lots of off shore potential - not to mention all the perfectly fine wells we capped in the '60s when we started importing oil from the Saudis. "oh we're just waiting until the arabs run out then we'll have are own oil" the arabs aren't gonna run out for another 30 years. "because it's too hard and expensive to drill for oil here" bull shit, the Canadians have the geography as us and their our top supplier. Hell, they drill for the tough oil, convert the shale to oil, and turn black sand into oil. And they're rolling in dough.

[JackPhantasm]

Really, are you serious?

[Slizor]

true but considering our physical girthyness given the other countries on the list petite nature i would say that remains a fairly bloated charge.

That is one small element, in fact it's something I already recognised. However, claiming that 70% more energy is used per capita solely on the basis that the country is larger is absolute bullshit. Unless you want to somehow reason that Americans commute between each coast every day.

The reason the US has the ethos it does is because of savvy handling of oversea oil assets.

Erm...no. It's more to do with the huge historical endowment of oil that the US developed off the back of, the weakness of Congress in standing up to sectional interests, the physical size of America and the extraordinary power of the oil lobby. All these have created a unsustainable American petrosociety that would prefer to attempt to continue to feed its addiction (as President Bush called it) rather than deal with it.

(manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts) 22.6% of our economy with $1.14 trillion in yearly exports.

You are actually going to have to make points to get me to respond to them, not just quote a statistic.

renewable fuel substitutes is where its at.

It's really not. Putting aside the other issues, such as food security, there would have to be a huge commitment to using and producing biofuels that would also require significant infrastructure changes and investment.

http://www.genencor.com/cms/connect/gene ncor/media_relations/news/frontpage/gen_
pressrelease_413_en.htm
"Joint Venture Combines Companies' Strengths in the Development and Deployment of Second Generation Ethanol from Non-Food Feedstocks to Address $75 Billion Market Opportunity"

SWiSH. lol

You're not seriously suggesting that that will cover US usage of oil? Even if Bush fufills his ambitious 20-20 plan (20% of oil to be biofuel by 2020), which this is part of, there is still a huge way to go to come even close to addressing the long term problems of American oil dependence. And then we still have the other factors.

Oh, and please stop thinking that little points derail my argument. Politics is multi-casual and multi-faceted, if you continue to highlight single issues then you will continue to miss the bigger picture.

[Cutieq]

i've been thinking of some alternatives to oil. I've heard that a while back scientist have tried to use the ocean water to fuel cars, its a renewable resource and it could work, but something happened and they had to cancel research. I've also thought of a way that would help the enviornment. If somehow scientist can reverse the effect of gas oil and instead of releasing CO2 in the air to fuel the cars, they can make cars that use CO2 to fuel the cars. Also, i don't know if they already thought of this but solar powered cars? They probably won't be fast but its a cheap and better alternative then Kerosene oil. ..

[Professor-D-Weed]

You could rely on the Democrats to find a cheaper, earth cleanlier fuel source, or rely on the Republicans to tap underneath the wildlife preserves in Alaska. Other than that, I dunno what the fuck we're gonna do.....

[ABsoldier17]

At 5/23/08 01:45 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote: You could rely on the Democrats to find a cheaper, earth cleanlier fuel source, or rely on the Republicans to tap underneath the wildlife preserves in Alaska. Other than that, I dunno what the fuck we're gonna do.....

Alternative fuels don't work. periode. Everyone is now saying switch grass, but how long before that's a viable option? 30 years. Whereas if you drill in ANWAR it's a 5 year wait. In the rockies (Colorado as a whole has a projected trillion barrels of oil) again 5 years. Off shore in California (if we don't cheat and un-cap the already existing wells) 5 years. Not to mention Montana and North Dakota all have some harder to get to, but not at all impossible to reach oil.... 3 to 4.3 BILLION BARRELS of it. At least 5 years before the oil flows in massvie amounts. My logic trumps yours.
It's because of people like you we don't have a steady supply of domestic oil, keeping prices down.
So screw the wildlife preserve argument, nobody goes there, it won't disrupt the caribou, and it will make the state of Alaska money... something that state has an extreme lack off

[TonyTostieno]

At 5/23/08 01:36 PM, Cutieq wrote: i've been thinking of some alternatives to oil. I've heard that a while back scientist have tried to use the ocean water to fuel cars, its a renewable resource and it could work, but something happened and they had to cancel research. I've also thought of a way that would help the enviornment. If somehow scientist can reverse the effect of gas oil and instead of releasing CO2 in the air to fuel the cars, they can make cars that use CO2 to fuel the cars. Also, i don't know if they already thought of this but solar powered cars? They probably won't be fast but its a cheap and better alternative then Kerosene oil. ..

Huh, that sounds interesting, wanna do us a favor and show a link? I'd like to read about that.

CO2 wouldn't be able to burn, it just doesn't happen. The temps that the exhaust from a car reaches fresh from the engine is ridiculous, so if CO2 burns at all it would be at some ridiculously high temp that would be unattainable without the use of other fuels.

They've already thought of solar powered cars, and they haven't come up with anything especially great or useful yet.

[slowerthenb4]

That is one small element, in fact it's something I already recognised. However, claiming that 70% more energy is used per capita solely on the basis that the country is larger is absolute bullshit. Unless you want to somehow reason that Americans commute between each coast every day.

- - - US

total area: 9,826,630 sq km
irrigated land: 223,850 sq km
roadways: 6,430,366 km
population: 303,824,646
unemployment rate: 4.6%
oil consumption: 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
GDP = $13.86 trillion

- - -The EU countries: (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK)

total area: 4,324,782 sq km
irrigated land: 168,050 sq km
roadways: 4,465,493 km
population: 491,018,677
unemployment rate: 8.5%
oil consumption: 14.58 million bbl/day
GDP = $14.45 trillion

Facts:
+(5,501,848 )sq km more area
+(55,800)sq km more irrigated land
+(1,964,873)km more roads
+(187,294,031) million less people
=(3.9%) more of the population has a job *approx*
=(6.22) million bbl/day more oil consumption
=(0.59) trillion less GDP then your EU of 27 individual countries.

this wont quell your criticism but these are the facts. our economy is capable of standing toe to toe with your EU. more of our population has jobs but over an area bigger then the EU by 5 million (SQUARE) km.

You are actually going to have to make points to get me to respond to them, not just quote a statistic.

lots of people need gasoline to do their jobs.

You're not seriously suggesting that that will cover US usage of oil? Even if Bush fufills his ambitious 20-20 plan (20% of oil to be biofuel by 2020), which this is part of, there is still a huge way to go to come even close to addressing the long term problems of American oil dependence. And then we still have the other factors.

that *technology* will.

the long term problems of gasoline supply, fuel for our cars and machinery, would become a function of the us agricultural capacity. Even drilling our reserves in Alaska,offshore in Cali, and incresing faculty for oil sand to use huge reserves in the Dakotas and Minnesota only fills the sieve again to be sucked up. the principle idea thats so appealing to me with bio fuel is that its adding to the plate of the American Farmers. Switchgrass is drought resistant disease resistant flood resistant pretty much everything resistant, it grows really fast, and it replenishes the nutritional levels in the soil from rotating crops.

Oh, and please stop thinking that little points derail my argument. Politics is multi-casual and multi-faceted, if you continue to highlight single issues then you will continue to miss the bigger picture.

little points? these points span the expertise of like six different principle studies. Your right there is a ton to consider but i hardly think my response was belittling. I have a firm grip on the big picture? you were doing so well until the end there. dont look at me when your debating a point look at my arguments structure by cross examining the details or providing counter citation. my big picture?... bullox i say!!

[slowerthenb4]

just hit $4.00/gallon in the AZ

[bobomajo]

Cheap petrol is a thing of the past. It could be made cheap again if all countries increased production, but it would only make the world oil supply run out, then it will become more expensive soon enough anyway. We need to stop planning things in the short term leaving our grandchildren and great grandchildren to bear the repercussions. We will need to reconstruct the way we deal with moving between two points, lots of people will not like this but its really tough shit. Plus it hasn't helped that a quick profit has been as an argument to stagnate development of technology, I heard some story not sure if its true but some guy in the 50s claimed to have invented an engine that ran off water, but was put out of business because governments added fluoride to tap water which made the engine non functional, making it nonviable alternative to petrol.
If Thomas Edison invented electric light today, Dan Rather would report it on CBS News as "candle making industry threatened. Newt Gingrich

Its either that or we build a global dodgem car track to get around cheaply.

[TheMason]

At 5/22/08 07:35 AM, Slizor wrote: The (American) solution is to move away from the ridiculous levels of oil consumption by promoting more fuel efficient cars, increasing taxes on oil to a level similar to the rest of the developed world, fundamentally reorganising cities based on the concept of urban sprawl and investing in public transport. Essentially, America has been living beyond its means (in domestic oil production) for many years now and it really needs to solve its addiction to oil.

1) You are correct about more fuel efficient cars.
2) Increasing oil taxes would negatively impact the poor and is unnecessary in a non-socialist developed country such as the US.
3) Public transport is problematic in the US. When I was a kid my dad's best munincipal accounting job was found 72 miles away from where my Mom found a good teaching job. His was in St. Louis and hers was in rural Missouri. Public transportation just doesn't work for the rural worker who has to work in a city.

You are right that we need to live more conservatively in terms of our oil consumption, but only your first solution would really solve anything.

[TheMason]

At 5/23/08 01:45 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote: You could rely on the Democrats to find a cheaper, earth cleanlier fuel source, or rely on the Republicans to tap underneath the wildlife preserves in Alaska. Other than that, I dunno what the fuck we're gonna do.....

There are just as many oil interests speaking in the Democrat's ears as there are whispering in the Republicans. Afterall, in 2000 they countered the Bush oil wealth with the Gore oil wealth. And tapping wildlife preserves in Alaska is receiving support from both parties.

Also, it is not the politicians who are going to do what you're speaking of. It is going to be the private sector who will deliver those things. The politicians who will happen to be in office at the time are just going to benefit parasitically off of these developments.

To think who is in office will actually fix things is naive.

[D2Kvirus]

Ahh, got a laugh from CNN whinging about paying the equivilent of 75p per litre on petrol: we pay £1.16 ($2.32) per litre in the UK, so stop your f'n whining!

Of course, UK petrol prices may as well be represented by a pie chart outside the petrol station: one chunk for actual cost, one chunk for fuel duty, and one for tax...

[ps2gamer72450]

The way things are going, I'm moving to Europe, if that fails, ill live on my own in the middle of the forest or jungle and fend for myself so i dont have to deal with all this taxing and pricing bullshit.

[TheMason]

At 5/25/08 03:16 PM, ps2gamer72450 wrote: The way things are going, I'm moving to Europe, if that fails, ill live on my own in the middle of the forest or jungle and fend for myself so i dont have to deal with all this taxing and pricing bullshit.

If you think moving to Europe is a solution to taxing and pricing...you show your ignorance of this topic. The taxation in Europe is far higher outside the US.

[bcdemon]

At 5/25/08 01:18 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Ahh, got a laugh from CNN whinging about paying the equivilent of 75p per litre on petrol: we pay £1.16 ($2.32) per litre in the UK, so stop your f'n whining!

I paid the equivalent of $5.14 US a gallon today. I wish Canada would join OPEC, I could handle paying 0.15 cents a gallon, like Venezuela.

[slowerthenb4]

At 5/25/08 03:16 PM, ps2gamer72450 wrote: The way things are going, I'm moving to Europe, if that fails, ill live on my own in the middle of the forest or jungle and fend for myself so i dont have to deal with all this taxing and pricing bullshit.

you really have no idea do you? enjoy Europe boyo.

[slowerthenb4]

4.80 gallon US phx AZ

[cellardoor6]

I paid $4.15 per gallon today. I'm sick of it.

I'm buying a freaking scooter. I had one a few years ago and it was awesome. I think it got about 100mpg. I'd only have to fill it once a week for like $6 (at the time). Also sometimes in heavy traffic I'd just cruise past everyone on the side of the road, go through bike trails and /walking trails etc...

Awesome.

Unfortunately it makes anyone, no matter how suave they are, look like a total douche. And that cramps my style.

[Der-Lowe]

We use natural compressed gas. W00t!

[slowerthenb4]

At 6/3/08 06:56 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: We use natural compressed gas. W00t!

what kind of gas is that butane?