# gas prices this summer   yikes



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 25, 2007)

The monthly oil/gas inventories were just announced and it does not look good. Supply is tighter than expected. This can change but commodity(crude oil, unleaded gas) futures options which play a key role on prices at the pump is already into June. Refinery output is lower than expected and the CEO of Conoco-Philips just said in an interview that he is not sure if gas supply this summer will be able to meet demand. 

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for folks to blame the oil companies with their amazing profits. The real culprit is us, we continnue to suck up the gas/oil like there is no tomorrow. Our increasing and inefficient usuage results in the oil companies profit. On the positive we are working on alternative energy(ethanol, electric cars) and (wind and solar) to replace oil source home heating. Also on the positive side our economy cannot handle gas prices at the pump much over $3 a gallon, although folks in California would disagree, so when the national average gets around $3 action is taken to increase supply. OPEC doesn't want demand to decrease which happens when the price gets high so they too are sensitive to high prices and will increase output, as they did last summer, 

Buy your Moped now before the price goes up more.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Apr 25, 2007)

C'mon now  ---- the Oil companies as  altruistic good guys --give me a break !! 

 The Oil lobby , the companies  and their  greed hog  CEO's and  their no so hidden political allies show  no allegiance to any nation or people . Its simply about sucking our pockets dry bcuz they can .

 I have been energy conscious and  driven small efficient vehicles  and done numerous modifications to my property for over 35 years and see these SOB's as OPPORTUNISTS of the worst ilk. 

As a matter of fact  i'd like to see them  nationalized --Where the Hell is is Give em Hell Harry Truman  when we need him ?


----------



## JimG. (Apr 25, 2007)

The topic made me cringe.

Please keep this discussion non-political.

The first hint of politics (close already) will lead to a lock.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 25, 2007)

I'm all set for the raise. I purchased a bunch of Valero stock in October and December for about $52-$53 a share and just sold it at $65 a share. Profit is enough to offset any raise in prices


----------



## roark (Apr 25, 2007)

andyzee said:


> I'm all set for the raise. I purchased a bunch of Valero stock in October and December for about $52-$53 a share and just sold it at $65 a share. Profit is enough to offset any raise in prices


Weren't willing to ride it for a year huh?


----------



## andyzee (Apr 25, 2007)

roark said:


> Weren't willing to ride it for a year huh?


 
Nope


----------



## Terry (Apr 25, 2007)

The truck will sit home and the motorcycle and bicycle will get used much more. Also the two shoe cadillac!


----------



## wintersyndrome (Apr 25, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Nope



VLO $70.57 up nearly 3% today


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 25, 2007)

andyzee said:


> I'm all set for the raise. I purchased a bunch of Valero stock in October and December for about $52-$53 a share and just sold it at $65 a share. Profit is enough to offset any raise in prices



I have been watching Valero and it's a great stock. They own a bunch of refineries which is a good thing to own now or take some profit like you did. Just remember that since you owned it for less than a year you will get hit with some capital gains tax when you file next year as I think Roark was alluding to.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 25, 2007)

wintersyndrome said:


> VLO $70.57 up nearly 3% today


 
Didn't want to take a chance and get greedy, I'm happy with what I made.


----------



## wintersyndrome (Apr 25, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Didn't want to take a chance and get greedy, I'm happy with what I made.



Just bustin chops andy...$13/ps is a great time to take a profit


----------



## dmc (Apr 25, 2007)

I hope to do a lot of telecommuting this summer...

But if I do drive down to the corp. apartment in Ct... 
I'll either skate of bike to work...  A little less then a mile to the office..


----------



## Goblin84 (Apr 25, 2007)

well, i skipped the end of this thread...sorry guys

all I have to say is I am glad to be commuting into work via my bike this summer!


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 25, 2007)

Honestly, I can not wait for $6 a gallon. Seriously! Once gas prices increase to a level that alternative energy sources and hybrids become viable alternatives, it will become economic necessity to use greener and cleaner energy sources. I am all for it. And until that time comes, my 35 MPG vehicle that I bought used several years back for $8k is seeming more and more like a sound investment.


----------



## mlctvt (Apr 25, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Honestly, I can not wait for $6 a gallon. Seriously! Once gas prices increase to a level that alternative energy sources and hybrids become viable alternatives, it will become economic necessity to use greener and cleaner energy sources. I am all for it. And until that time comes, my 35 MPG vehicle that I bought used several years back for $8k is seeming more and more like a sound investment.



Right on Steve, I feel the exact same way .  I was going to post earlier but I didn't want to get flamed. You are 100% correct,  until gas hits $5-$6 a gallon I seriously don't think many people will change their habits. I've definaltey made some changes but most people just bitch and complain but continue to drive their behemoth gas guzzler SUVs usually with only one person in it.


----------



## snoseek (Apr 25, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Honestly, I can not wait for $6 a gallon. Seriously! Once gas prices increase to a level that alternative energy sources and hybrids become viable alternatives, it will become economic necessity to use greener and cleaner energy sources. I am all for it. And until that time comes, my 35 MPG vehicle that I bought used several years back for $8k is seeming more and more like a sound investment.



i fully agree with what your saying. a couple years ago i traded my old truck for a civic hx because of high prices. money talks, and things need to change asap. that's all i will say without going on a political rant.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 25, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> Honestly, I can not wait for $6 a gallon. Seriously! Once gas prices increase to a level that alternative energy sources and hybrids become viable alternatives, it will become economic necessity to use greener and cleaner energy sources.



I agree with your logic 1000% except the national average will never reach $4. If it did get to $6 there would be such a stampede for alternative energies it would probably get all screwed up. Whenever there is a rush to fix a problem we usually end up way overcorrecting. 

I feel there is definately growing momentum on many fronts for going green and developing alternative energy. These seasonal spikes help move it along as well.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 26, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I agree with your logic 1000% except the national average will never reach $4. If it did get to $6 there would be such a stampede for alternative energies it would probably get all screwed up. Whenever there is a rush to fix a problem we usually end up way overcorrecting.
> 
> I feel there is definately growing momentum on many fronts for going green and developing alternative energy. These seasonal spikes help move it along as well.


I would not be surprised to see $4 a gallon soon. Who knew that we would ever hit $3 a gallon? Especially when just seven years ago it was only $1 a gallon? But I do see your point about the over correction issue and obviously, a super high sudden spike would be bad for the market and economy. Gradual increasing and spikes, as you mentioned, do lead the way to developing alternatives.


----------



## dmc (Apr 26, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> I would not be surprised to see $4 a gallon soon. Who knew that we would ever hit $3 a gallon? Especially when just seven years ago it was only $1 a gallon? But I do see your point about the over correction issue and obviously, a super high sudden spike would be bad for the market and economy. Gradual increasing and spikes, as you mentioned, do lead the way to developing alternatives.



Those prices won't hurt me...

But they will hurt others...  It's easy for us consumers of gas that just use it for comuting to say we can handle increased prices...  But what about businesses that are already struggling and use a lot of gas to deliver goods and services?


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 26, 2007)

Here's a suggestion as to how to use your consumer power.  Just got this in an E-mail. Seems a bit simplistic, but worth a try:



> GAS WAR - an idea that WILL work
> 
> This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one
> of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It' s worth your
> ...


----------



## roark (Apr 26, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Here's a suggestion as to how to use your consumer power.  Just got this in an E-mail. Seems a bit simplistic, but worth a try:


Familiar with the "Prisoner's Dilemma"?

Simplified outcome: we'll act in our individual best interest (buy the cheaper gas all the time) with the net effect being we're all worse off. :-x


----------



## andyzee (Apr 26, 2007)

roark said:


> Familiar with the "Prisoner's Dilemma"?
> 
> Simplified outcome: we'll act in our individual best interest (buy the cheaper gas all the time) with the net effect being we're all worse off. :-x


 
Yeah, that's a funny one. Let's say gas at Shell is $2.79 and the price at Exxon drops to $2.59 due to the boycott. Which station would you buy at?


----------



## dmc (Apr 26, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Here's a suggestion as to how to use your consumer power.  Just got this in an E-mail. Seems a bit simplistic, but worth a try:




wait... i repsonded to this already...  And I don't think it was policitcal....  But now i see the post deleted I wonder if it's a reverse politcal delete...

this boycott is dumb...

Please be careful who you end up punishing...


----------



## Greg (Apr 26, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Here's a suggestion as to how to use your consumer power.  Just got this in an E-mail. Seems a bit simplistic, but worth a try:



http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_gas_boycott_2006.htm


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 26, 2007)

dmc said:


> wait... i repsonded to this already...  And I don't think it was policitcal....  But now i see the post deleted I wonder if it's a reverse politcal delete...
> 
> this boycott is dumb...
> 
> Please be careful who you end up punishing...



Huh?  :blink:


----------



## dmc (Apr 26, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Huh?  :blink:



Chain letter boycotts are supid... Especially this one... Because it won't hurt anyone except the little guy...


----------



## Greg (Apr 26, 2007)

dmc said:


> Chain letter boycotts are supid... Especially this one... Because it won't hurt anyone except the little guy...



Agreed. See my above link. This chain letter has been circulating in one variation or another for years. You can rest assured that basically any forwarded Email that urges you to pass it on to 10 friends, or "everyone you know" is almost always a hoax or some other Email rumor, pyramid scheme, chain letter, etc...


----------



## dmc (Apr 26, 2007)

Greg said:


> Agreed. See my above link. This chain letter has been circulating in one variation or another for years. You can rest assured that basically any forwarded Email that urges you to pass it on to 10 friends, or "everyone you know" is almost always a hoax or some other Email rumor, pyramid scheme, chain letter, etc...



These things are a great way to harvest emails..


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 26, 2007)

Greg said:


> Agreed. See my above link. This chain letter has been circulating in one variation or another for years. You can rest assured that basically any forwarded Email that urges you to pass it on to 10 friends, or "everyone you know" is almost always a hoax or some other Email rumor, pyramid scheme, chain letter, etc...



Yeah...figured it was BS.  Threw it out here for conversation.  Got some thoughts going...and some folks thinking.  That's not a bad thing.


----------



## dmc (Apr 26, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Yeah...figured it was BS.  Threw it out here for conversation.  Got some thoughts going...and some folks thinking.  That's not a bad thing.




It is a bad thing when you get them thinking about stuff like that that email contains...

It's like saying - I don't like the price of candy because cocoa prices went up so I'm going to boycott the corner store...


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 26, 2007)

The national average right now is around $2.80/gal. While California is always mentioned on the news, pricewise it's in a world all by itself. don't forget local, state and federal taxes make up a huge chunk, depending on the location, of the price. 

DMC is right on that while as an individual you can midigate the price hike but for most it does hurt them. Last year just about this time we facing a similar problem, actually worse as the half the Alaskan pipeline was shut down due to pipe corrosion. The price spiked up and Bush announced that if need be he would authorize a release from the federal reserve to prop up the supply. Almost immediately the price hike cooled off, then the friendly countries of OPEC increased supply and the Alaskan problem was fixed alot faster than first thought and the price tho high did stableize. 

Before the national average gets to $4 things will once again fall into place to protect our economy. At least I hope so.  

BTW, in Burlington I think(?) they recently passed an ordinace where you could get a ticket if you leave your vehicle idling. In Montpelier they have signs in the parking lots asking people to turn their cars off. There is a debate whether this actually saves any gas but it does show that people are thinking about the problem and are coming up with many diferent ways to try and reduce our use of oil, which is a good thing.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 26, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> BTW, in Burlington I think(?) they recently passed an ordinace where you could get a ticket if you leave your vehicle idling.


IIRC, there already was an ordinance, but they just passed another one that essentially gave the original some teeth? Or something to that effect, maybe nelsapbm can enlighten us on the details as she is surely familiar with it.

Regarding DMC's point about consumers vs. businesses accepting increased rates with ease, that does go back to SRO's point that these peaks and slight reductions (3 steps forward 2 steps back style) helps soften the blow gradually over time. Fact is, gas is a limited resource and I would rather both consumers and businesses make financial adjustments now than face a "sudden death" or "cold turkey" shut off down the road with a HUGE spike in prices when demand truly can not be met (unlike in this case, just the industry causing a few waves to spike prices...). Fact is, businesses need to adapt and change just like consumers. I am actually more concerned about Joe Average Lower Class that is barely getting by with full time work on slightly lower than minimum wage. See a lot of that in rural areas like around here in the Kingdom. Those are the people hit hardest by the increases. And if businesses absorb increases as well... cost of goods goes up, inflation happens, businesses cut jobs, and buying power of the dollar continues to decline since wages are not and will not keep pace with inflated prices. Not good. I am forecasting a dire situation within 20 years if the economy doesn't adapt and adjust quick enough and I am planning for worst case scenario with my long term financial situation. Hopefully it will not come to pass that the economy crashes due to a sudden adjustment in energy but if we don't adjust energy usage, demands, and needs now... more draconian measures with much more dire circumstances would need to take place.


----------



## SkiDog (Apr 26, 2007)

Is there a struggling economy right now??? didnt the dow average just go over a ALL TIME RECORD of 13,000? Doesnt sound like a struggling economy to me.

M


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 26, 2007)

Who said there was a struggling economy right now? It certainly is not strong though, that is for sure. I would not judge the long term viability of economies and markets based on a one day record on the stock market. Especially considering recent news that the recent housing issues are likely to trickle down into the rest of the economy. Who knows what will happen. But gas prices have been relatively stable over the past year since prices came down from their peak, so no one is suggesting an economy effect from gas prices in the present.


----------



## dmc (Apr 26, 2007)

Unfortunatly as the rich get richer...  
Sometimes the poor get poorer......


----------



## thetrailboss (Apr 26, 2007)

dmc said:


> It is a bad thing when you get them thinking about stuff like that that email contains...
> 
> It's like saying - I don't like the price of candy because cocoa prices went up so I'm going to boycott the corner store...



Good point, but Exxon Mobil is in no way the local corner store.....

As for the point about the Dow, so what?  That just means that the Dow is up.  That does not help with the many people who are being foreclosed because of predatory lending practices and the collapse of the subprime market.  Nor does that help blue collar workers on the assembly lines...what are left of them.  It only means that one sector of the economy is doing OK on one day.  Tomorrow it will correct itself.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 27, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Is there a struggling economy right now??? didnt the dow average just go over a ALL TIME RECORD of 13,000? Doesnt sound like a struggling economy to me.
> 
> M



That depends where you are in the process...


----------



## dmc (Apr 27, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Good point, but Exxon Mobil is in no way the local corner store.....



Dude.... Your missing my point...  The guy that struggles to own a gas station is NOT Exxon...
He's a small bisuness owner...  Exxon just doesn't give him the business..


----------



## ckofer (Apr 27, 2007)

The real issue is the amount of fuel we waste. Why is it that big horsepower is such a sales feature? I used to have a plow truck with a 454. Even empty it just gobbled gas. Why? Because most of the fuel used was just becoming heat-not motion. 

It's just amazing how may people own big, heavy trucks just for commuting. It's not too unlike the 50's to the early 70's when big, inefficient engines were standard.

Not too get too political, but the only policy that may work is high tarrifs on poor fuel economy vehicles-both at purchase time and registration time. Consumer-level response to high fuel prices is too hard to predict.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 27, 2007)

ckofer said:


> Not too get too political, but the only policy that may work is high tarrifs on poor fuel economy vehicles-both at purchase time and registration time. Consumer-level response to high fuel prices is too hard to predict.


VT was trying to push through legislation to make buying a low MPG vehicle cost more. car manufacturers are going nuts. they also went nuts when legislation passed to require seat belts in all cars. it certainly is an option, but i think that devising ways to make people WANT to buy fuel efficient vehicles rather than being forced to buy them is key in this economy. high gas prices will definitely do the trick.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 28, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Is there a struggling economy right now??? didnt the dow average just go over a ALL TIME RECORD of 13,000? Doesnt sound like a struggling economy to me.
> M



While there is a relationship between the DJIA and our economy there are other factors that play a much bigger role. Remmeber the DJIA is an index that includes only 30 companies.

It's all about growth. Too fast we have inflation, a very bad thing, too slow we have a reccession. The entity that controls this is the Fed(the entity that controls the central banking system) who raise, lower or stay the course on interest rates. 

After raising the rates for 17 straight meetings they have stayed the course for the last few months. The goal is to have the economy grow is a slow even pace which has been the case since the Fed paused raising interest rates. There are always pressures from diferent parts of the economy that try to pull it towards inflation or reccession. The housing/subprime problem is pulling things down while gas prices are a worry regarding inflation.

So, at the moment the overall economy is growing at a nice slow steady pace. Opinions about the future economy are as varied as snowflakes on a bunny slope, The DOW is at a record but for many, including myself, that is actually cause for some concern. 

As with gas prices there are alot of checks and balances in our economy. If your connected in any way to the housing contruction or American auto industry then chances are you are stuggling right now. Most of the other parts of the economy are doing fine.


----------



## ctenidae (Apr 28, 2007)

I want $5 gas and $2 diesel.
That way consumers are only hurt for what they consume.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 29, 2007)

ctenidae said:


> I want $5 gas and $2 diesel.
> That way consumers are only hurt for what they consume.



I want an medium-size SUV that gets 40 mpg and glovebox full of free ski passes for next season.


----------



## Terry (Apr 29, 2007)

That would be a nice find!


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 8, 2007)

Well in AHNULD --_Land   gas hit $4.44 today --AARGH  !! The END is near :>(


----------



## ctenidae (May 8, 2007)

Warp Daddy said:


> Well in AHNULD --_Land   gas hit $4.44 today --AARGH  !! The END is near :>(



Good. Keep it going up. At $5/gallon, all kinds of things become economically feasible. At $80/barell for oil, wind energy almost works out, even.


----------



## JimG. (May 9, 2007)

ctenidae said:


> Good. Keep it going up. At $5/gallon, all kinds of things become economically feasible. At $80/barell for oil, wind energy almost works out, even.



None of you folks who wish for $5 a gallon gas must have much of a commute. Must be nice.

But try to think of the economic realities of the little guys who aren't just businesses but just common Joe's trying to get to work. $5 a gallon for gas doesn't work for me at all.

I got rid of my SUV years ago...I try to conserve as much as possible, used less fuel oil this winter than in years past and just wore sweaters. I guess that's not enough though.

If I had to pay $5 a gallon for gas I'd have to quit my job because I couldn't commute...I can't afford that. It's easy to call for that solution when you don't have to pay for it.

Here's the bottom line...everyone still thinks with their wallet and support anything that doesn't damage them financially. Until everyone realizes we're all going to have to pay something for the energy situation we're in, nothing is going to change.


----------



## Grassi21 (May 9, 2007)

JimG. said:


> None of you folks who wish for $5 a gallon gas must have much of a commute. Must be nice.
> 
> But try to think of the economic realities of the little guys who aren't just businesses but just common Joe's trying to get to work. $5 a gallon for gas doesn't work for me at all.
> 
> ...



Yeah, my 50 minute commute each way in my Jeep Wrangler is starting to hurt.  I've started taking the train to NYC once a week, drive to Norwalk, CT twice a week, and work from home one day.  But then you throw in coaching and playing lacrosse and the whole equation is ruined.  We are lucky in that my wife works from home full time.


----------



## MRGisevil (May 9, 2007)

Actually, Grassi, my husband got rid of his Jeep for the same reason... long commute, lots of gas. 

It's a 45 minute commute from my area to Hartford. Happily, my husband and I work two minutes down the road from one another so we can carpool; this saves both cost on gas and emissions. I know that if I couldn't carpool with him I certainly wouldn't be able to work this far from home. 

'Tis a sad, sad day when you see $2.84/gal and say to yourself, "Wow, what a deal!"


----------



## snoseek (May 9, 2007)

our gas is so cheap when compared to other nations. i don't really love the idea of further taxes on gas as this would seem like very regressive taxing to me. How about the whole idea of further taxing high emission vehicles, and breaks for low emission vehicles? probably not real popular with voters, but at least it gives the paying public a choice to make.


i really don't know the answer, just throwing out a thought.


----------



## ctenidae (May 10, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Here's the bottom line...everyone still thinks with their wallet and support anything that doesn't damage them financially. Until everyone realizes we're all going to have to pay something for the energy situation we're in, nothing is going to change.



I don't have much of a commute (all subway), but you can be sure I pay for that convenience in rent that's twice what I'd pay in the 'burbs, but it's worth it to me to not have to sit in the car for two hours a day.

In the end, it's short(ish) pain for long term gain. It is our wallets doing the thinking, and until they force us to change what we're doing, we won't. Remember- nations will behave logically when they have exhausted all other options.


----------



## loafer89 (May 10, 2007)

I agree that oil prices should be higher to cut down on unnecessary consumption, but this may also lead to increased destruction of the environment as oil companies look for short term easy fixes and use cheaper domestic supplies like sand tar or shale oil.

Right now the cost for these processes is high, but sustained prices above $80 a barrel would make them profitable.

In Pennsylvania the Anthracite coal regions would be prime coal to oil conversion areas and the depressed economy would benefit, but at what cost to the environment?.

Just my $0.2


----------



## Grassi21 (May 10, 2007)

MRGisevil said:


> Actually, Grassi, my husband got rid of his Jeep for the same reason... long commute, lots of gas.
> 
> It's a 45 minute commute from my area to Hartford. Happily, my husband and I work two minutes down the road from one another so we can carpool; this saves both cost on gas and emissions.



This Jeep will be in my family for as long as I can keep it running.  I sold-out once and traded in my first Jeep.  I won't do it again.  Not to mention my wife got really pissed at me when I traded the first one in.  Its a shame too.  I had lifted it 2", upgraded the tires, shocks, and battery, and bought neoprene seat covers.  The new Jeep is stock and has a long way to go until I can afford to modify it or have a second commuter car.  Having the top and doors off for over a week now has made the rapidly moving gas gauge palatable.

My wife's office is less than two minutes down the road from me.  Good thing for her is she never goes into the office.  She works from home 5 days a week.  I'm lucky enough to get one or two days from home per week.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 10, 2007)

I think many people are short sighted when they say, yeah, bring on $5 a gallon gasoline.  
Do you also wish to pay $30 instead of $25 for your steak at a restaurant? $5 a tube for tooth paste instead of $4?

The US is a big place, and high gas prices hurt people who don't drive as well.  The United States definitely needs to reduce its dependence on oil, but only through development of alternative energies and biofuel isn't the answer there either because that also drives up the cost of food in this nation.  

People say, well look at the prices in Europe, we should feel lucky to 'only' have to pay $3 a gallon.  Europe is a different animal.  It's a small densely populated place with ports easily accessing almost every nation to move about goods.  That isn't the case here in the states, nor will it ever be.  

The moral of the story, even you subway commuters should be concerned with high gas prices.


----------



## JimG. (May 10, 2007)

deadheadskier said:


> I think many people are short sighted when they say, yeah, bring on $5 a gallon gasoline.
> Do you also wish to pay $30 instead of $25 for your steak at a restaurant? $5 a tube for tooth paste instead of $4?
> 
> The US is a big place, and high gas prices hurt people who don't drive as well.  The United States definitely needs to reduce its dependence on oil, but only through development of alternative energies and biofuel isn't the answer there either because that also drives up the cost of food in this nation.
> ...



Thanks dhs...this is really the point I was trying to make. In the end, everyone will have to pay when the gas runs out.

Some folks tell me to get a new job closer to home, or to telecommute. Well, it's tough to find a good job that will pay for a family of 5 and allow my wife to stay home and work raising our 3 sons. Maybe we'll all have to go to work to make ends meet at some point in the future, but I'm not making that concession today nor should I have to. And my boss doesn't allow telecommuting...he's got deep pockets and doesn't care about high gas prices, so he doesn't think his employees should care either.


----------



## ctenidae (May 10, 2007)

I'm well aware of the effect of high gas prices on the broader economy. The renewable energy industry is also well aware of the effect of ethanol production on food prices- one of many reasons corn-based ethanol is barely being persued, except by politicians and the media. Algal biodiesel is where it's at. With Butynol and/or methanol from agri-waste sources, we could be all set, fairly easily.

Ethanol also requires all-new tank fleets and pipelines, or at the very least significant, expensive upgrades to existing equipment. Biodiesel does not.

$80/barrel oil makes a lot of alternatives feasible, but tar sands and oil shale are hardly two of them (more like $100/barrel for any US sources). Coal conversion, at the moment, isn't very good, either- about 2-3 times more carbon per energy unit. Wind becomes viable at $80, but the time factor is a killer there. 

The short-sightedness stems from people who won't pay more now to save everything later. Higher prices overall woudl lead to lower consumption overall, and that's not a bad thing. High fuel prices also starts to erode the savings from offshored manufacturing, which is good for the US. Net-net, high fuel prices are a good thing.


----------



## ctenidae (May 10, 2007)

JimG. said:


> And my boss doesn't allow telecommuting...he's got deep pockets and doesn't care about high gas prices, so he doesn't think his employees should care either.



That's pretty shortsighted.


----------



## JimG. (May 10, 2007)

ctenidae said:


> That's pretty shortsighted.




Tell me about it! That shortsightedness extends to business as well...very frustrating.

But shortsightedness is what got us all into this mess to begin with, so he's hardly alone. I guess my point here is that if we decide $5 a gallon is OK, we need to look long term and consider folks like me who commute. Maybe government sponsored incentives for my boss to allow telecommuting would be an option.

Charging alot for the gas is one thing, but making real inroads in alleviating our need for it is really the issue here.


----------



## jack97 (May 10, 2007)

In addition, take a look at the grocery stores, lots of produce from out of state and out of country. In the past, we had low prices due to cheap transportation cost. The prices are starting to creep up. 

Basically, I'm been trying to buy local but I'm resign to the fact that food cost will go up before this industry mitigates the high transportation cost.


----------



## loafer89 (May 10, 2007)

Canada, specifically Alberta holds well over 175 billion barrels of sand tar petroleum, which is economically viable to extract at oil prices higher than $28 a barrel. The environmental costs are horrible, but extraction and production are in full swing.

The United States holds shale oil reserves of 1.0 - 1.2 billion barrels, or 62% of the worlds supply, but extraction costs are high and it is only profitable if oil remains over $40 a barrel for quite some time before investment would be made in the technology to extract it. The US government also ownes 72% of the area where one could mine shale oil, so I see this as a potential oil supply in the 22nd century.

The best route is conservation, we bought a much smaller energy efficent house and foregoed central airconditioning. I am slowly replacing all of the incandecent lighting in the house with compact flourescent light bulbs, and we try to do as many errands with a single trip in the car as possible.


----------



## ctenidae (May 10, 2007)

Industry trying to mitigate those costs is what will drive fuel reform the most.

The Texas Congress just voted to remove the 20 cent gas tax, which will fly politically (I'd call it blatant pandering, but that's just me), but it solves nothing in the long term, and will probably lead to a pretty massive budget deficit, even if it does just last 90 days (and how do you reintroduce the tax without alienating voters?)


----------



## ctenidae (May 10, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> The best route is conservation



Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a winner.


----------



## trtaylor (May 10, 2007)

Good thread.

For anyone who is interested, I'll provide these links to some good energy blogs. I know there are others (such as Oil Drum), but these are the ones I read.

http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 10, 2007)

I think Ctenidae's point is that if the price is $5 then people will start to get serious about conserving. We have been thru this before and as soon as the gas price went back down people's motivation to conserve went out of the window. 

It definately all comes down to the wallet. It's a bitter pill to swallow for many but how else do you get people to REALLY conserve? How about a significant tax credit if you buy a very fuel efficient car? You can deduct from your taxes what you spend on public transportation?


----------



## loafer89 (May 10, 2007)

I am worried that with $5 a gallon oil, the American Public will demand increased pressure be put on Alaska and other domestic sources or energy which would degrade our environment further. In one way I want to see increased prices to force conservation, but I am also afraid of the environmental consequences.


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> I am worried that with $5 a gallon oil, the American Public will demand increased pressure be put on Alaska and other domestic sources or energy which would degrade our environment further.



That's what I'm worried about too...


----------



## ctenidae (May 11, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> I am worried that with $5 a gallon oil, the American Public will demand increased pressure be put on Alaska and other domestic sources or energy which would degrade our environment further. In one way I want to see increased prices to force conservation, but I am also afraid of the environmental consequences.



Certainly a concern. The good news, though, is that even if we started drilling ANWR today, no oil would be online for about 10 years. The oil companies aren't pushing for ANWR to be opened because it's so tough to get to, and no one wants to be the first to get beat up for it. Economically and politically, ANWR's not viable.

Coal will continue to be very important- after all, we have more BTUs in our coal stocks than the entire Middle East has in oil. I was talking to the (effective) owner of International Coal Group (yes, the guys that own the Sago mine), and he was (not surprisingly) pretty upbeat on coal gassification. Some of the technologies coming out actually allow for the capture of a lot of pollutants, especially sulfur, before it's gassified, so it's a physical rather than chemical process (plus you end up with a saleable byproduct). Gassification doesn't do much for transportation, but it does put some oil back into the system. These guys (http://www.coaltek.com/) have a pretty interesting system for cleaning coal prior to burning, too, and it looks like it'll be a goer.

Of course, coal mining has its own environmental issues, no matter how clean burning it can be. UNH has a pretty interesting program on algal biodiesel (http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html)- I think that's some pretty cool technology, and could be a big help, particularly for trucks and such.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 11, 2007)

The high cost of gas is starting to have a broader neg effect on our economy. The monthly retail numbers came out yesterday and April sales were softer than expected, raising concerns that retailers will see poor sales results in the months ahead. 

Course the experts and economic pundits  point to the high gas prices as the main reason. Personally I don't buy that for the simple fact the price of gas in April last year was about the same. 

Gap was down 16% but interestingly Saks was up 11%. Walmart had the weakest April ever. That fact alone scares the hell out of the stock market. This was the catylyst for slide in the stock market yesterday and anxiety in the other dominoes in line has increased.

I take this as good news as I mentioned in my first post, when this start happening then economic checks and balances come to play, once the price stabilizes, people adapt and go on there merrily way just like last year and years before that.


----------



## loafer89 (May 11, 2007)

An interesting bit of reading from Winkpedia:

After World War II, the US Bureau of Mines opened a demonstration mine at Anvils Point, just west of Rifle, Colorado, which operated at a small-scale. In the early sixties TOSCO (The Oil Shale Corporation) opened an underground mine and built an experimental plant near Parachute, Colorado. It closed in the late sixties because the price of production exceeded the cost of imported crude oil. It was not until the oil crisis of the 1970s and the US becoming a net importer of oil that efforts at utilization were increased. Military uses were deemed less important and commercial exploitation came to the fore, with several oil companies investing. Unocal returned to the same area where TOSCO had worked. Several billion dollars were spent until declining oil prices rendered production uneconomical once more and Unocal withdrew in 1991.* In late 2005, President Bush authorized discrete mining of federally owned reserves under Colorado's surface. The federal government currently owns 72% of all known oil shale in the US.*

How do you do mining in a discrete manner?:-?


----------



## ctenidae (May 11, 2007)

_How do you do mining in a discrete manner?_

Some you can (shaft mines, anyway, if you forget about the tailings). Oil shale, not so much- it's pretty much open pit (cheaper) or a really tough method involving sinking heater coils into hole to "melt" the oil and suck it out. A little cleaner, much more expensive, adn it requires the continual boring of new holes. 
The whole Colorado oil shale thing has been blown out so many times, I can't see it happening anytime real soon on any sort of scale. At oil prices that make it worthwhile, other methods are better. Interesting bit of non-publicized politicking, though.


----------



## loafer89 (May 11, 2007)

We get a small break on gasoline by purchasing it at our local Stop&Shop which sells 87 octane for $3.07 and we get $0.5 cents off per gallon for being a customer and an additional $0.10 per gallon for shopping in their store and spending more than $50 per week, which works out to $2.92 per gallon and that is not bad.

I managed to shop around in Vermont last weekend while driving up and got $2.89 in Ludlow. Gas was $3.15 at Killington.


----------



## bigbog (May 19, 2007)

*........*

So can anyone tell us what this administration's energy policy has been?
The only thing I can come up with is...._Plunder Iraq_....and _Lower taxes for the wealthiest_....:???:


----------



## Marc (May 19, 2007)

bigbog said:


> So can anyone tell us what this administration's energy policy has been?
> The only thing I can come up with is...._Plunder Iraq_....and _Lower taxes for the wealthiest_....:???:





JimG. said:


> The topic made me cringe.
> 
> Please keep this discussion non-political.
> 
> The first hint of politics (close already) will lead to a lock.



*Sigh*



Reading is fundamental.


----------



## riverc0il (May 20, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Gap was down 16% but interestingly Saks was up 11%. Walmart had the weakest April ever. That fact alone scares the hell out of the stock market. This was the catylyst for slide in the stock market yesterday and anxiety in the other dominoes in line has increased.


This is the unfortunate side effect of gas prices increasing (the only unfortunate side effect, in my opinion), people who make less money can't afford some things any more. If you are living pay check to pay check, gas prices could have a significant effect on spending habits. So Walmart having the weakest April ever while Saks is up 11% might suggest the hypothesis that folks with less money are hurt worse than those with more money.

But lets take a closer look at gas prices. Some of the cheapest cars on the market are 30+ MPG fuel efficient economy cars. So having a gas guzzler is personal choice unless it is needed for a job, but having that job is personal choice as well. Now the economics of gas prices is that gas prices went up about 50 cents in the past month. For a fuel efficient vehicle that is generally going to be one 10-12 gallon fill up per week or.....$5-$6 additional a week. Chump Change. Someone has to be living completely pay check to pay check for this to hurt. But if people do not have a fuel efficient vehicle (say a big truck or a SUV), you can pretty much double the effect to $10-$12. That is still less than the cost of two people eating out once a week. One less trip to McD's would pay for that difference.

If the current +3 bucks per gas is making people adjust their spending habits, well good. But for most people, this shouldn't have any practical difference. Any adjustments in spending at this point are likely psychologically induced freak out effects or people truly living pay check to pay check.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 21, 2007)

yada yada yada --its still all governed by greedy sobs in the  oil companies , They gouge bcuz they can  its that simple


----------



## bigbog (May 21, 2007)

*..........*



Warp Daddy said:


> yada yada yada --its still all governed by greedy sobs in the  oil companies , They gouge bcuz they can  its that simple


...And the media will manufacture excuses...and buy into song-&-dance interviews...imho.
The heads of mass media make too many secretive friends in the political realm via the bank account....and serious question, on-camera hosts are too few.

$.01


----------



## bigbog (May 21, 2007)

ctenidae said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a winner.


  Unfortunately, the people driving the most(along with those flying) during the week, drive the least on weeknights & weekends....you know, see the family & chores...(duh).  
If this country wants to remain an important _player_, government has to stop holding back progress by allowing automobile and energy companies to grossly profit while holding the public hostage from an energy self-sufficient future.


----------



## Marc (May 21, 2007)

Well the only course of official action to counter percieved price "gouging" is price control.  Do we really want to revisit that one?


----------



## ctenidae (May 21, 2007)

Marc said:


> Well the only course of official action to counter percieved price "gouging" is price control.  Do we really want to revisit that one?



It has worked so well in the past.


----------



## riverc0il (May 21, 2007)

Warp Daddy said:


> yada yada yada --its still all governed by greedy sobs in the  oil companies , They gouge bcuz they can  its that simple


It really is not that simple. Gas prices are the way they are because consumers are willing to pay those prices and not seek out alternatives. And what is this greedy thing? I am the LAST person to defend American Style Capitalism, but I will defend it against double standards. When any other company tried to make money (especially one we work for or are invested in), it is great but when an oil company tries to make money they are greedy? Not logical. All corporations are "greedy" by default because their shareholders demand it. We are part of the problem if we have 401ks which, btw, most likely include oil companies in the portfolios we are invested in. The gouging issue doesn't take into a simple part of the margin equation: if a company retains the same margin, then profits go up when costs go up by default, all other things being equal. Good for the oil companies for making a buck, bad for consumers for letting them do it on our dime.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 21, 2007)

Unfortunately in an oligopoly there is VERY  little competition and  even fewer reaonable alternatives and a leadership frankly that is moribund.

. Hell we've been CONSERVING , limiting  HP and size and maxing efficiency ( 4 cylinder engines since the first  energy crisis in 1973) long before most of you were born  !
  Many folks also maxed out home heating efficiency with ENERGY STAR upgrades  R40  insulation , 90+++ eff furnaces , Green products in the  home etc , car pooling , biking , walking etc - 

 Realistically WHAT the HELL more can be done by the  average citizen  ??

And yet these greed hogs still produce RECORD PROFITS and  pay obscene bonuses to their damn CEO"S 

Sorry for the rant ----------but i'm not buying that this isnt a contrived situation .-

-Why no new refineries in the last 3 decades ??  Why no goal about energy independence from  Middle East oil  similar to the goal John Kennedy set in 1960 that within 10 yrs we'd be on the  moon . Why ?


----------



## riverc0il (May 21, 2007)

I feel ya Warp Daddy, I dislike the big Corporate USA system that sets up the imbalance of wealth distribution. But the average citizen hardly drives a few efficient four cylinder (for what its worth, I do), so I think the average citizen has a lot more to do if they want to truly effect the market for gas prices. At this point, people are willing to pay the extra money for non-fuel efficient vehicles. The oil companies can have their temporary record profits if we can double the price of gas and cause some real long term change.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 21, 2007)

I realize this is the CSM but it has some great info regarding the refinery problem.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html


----------



## snoseek (May 21, 2007)

all summer long i drive 95 south to mass. and see lot's of large vehicles with  empty passenger seats...


----------



## John84 (May 21, 2007)

Warp Daddy said:


> Why no new refineries in the last 3 decades ??



From what I understand (I could be way off base), there is no incentive for oil companies to build new refineries. They cost so much that once the theoretical break even point has been reached, it's so far down the road that more money has been spent on upkeep and you still haven't broken even. Additionally, a refinery would likely have to be somewhere on the coasts to maximize efficiency in distribution to the people. I assume that most people would throw a fit if a refinery was being built in their neck of the woods.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 22, 2007)

A new report out today confirms that it is the continued high demand that is driving the prices at the pumps. It also confirms that as consumers there is not a whole we can do about it. We can try to conserve more than we are now but it will have little effect on the big picture. A recent driver of high global demand has been the  greatly expanding economies of Chine and India who are sucking up oil like never before. 

As far as the USA, in 2006 we consumered 1% more oil than the previous year. So far in 2007 it is 2%. Seems like a small increase but it's a doubling of increase in demand from last year. 

The refineries are the plug point in our delivery system. Iran and Venezuala are now refining their crude at home and shipping gasoline instead of crude. The sad truth is no new refineries are even planned except a small plant, I think in CA and it's not a mainstream type refinery. Many refineries have been expanded in the last 30 years.

Many of the major oil companies like Exxon/Mobil have nothing to due with the price of the pump. They have no refineries of their own. The price is determined by our free market system much like Maine lobstermen have nothing to do with the price you pay at your fav restaurant.

While many of us are adjusting our driving habits and other energy uses as much as we can to reduce our cost I have taken a more proactive path by investing in some of these companies. I like Velero(VLO), basically a refiner who is buying and building gas stations. We even have one in little old Waitsfield, Vt.


----------



## ctenidae (May 23, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I have taken a more proactive path by investing in some of these companies. I like Velero(VLO), basically a refiner who is buying and building gas stations. We even have one in little old Waitsfield, Vt.



That's a pretty cool idea- sort of gives you a rebate on your gas purchases. Nice one. Hess also owns their whole line, from refinery to pump, as does Citgo, even though they're Venezuelan.


----------



## loafer89 (May 30, 2007)

The news on T.V this morning mentioned that the Connecticut legislature is considering a gas tax holiday for this summer's driving season. A $0.25 break per gallon would help a bit, but I am a bit leary of higher taxes somewhere else down the road.

I gassed up in Massachusetts last week after visiting my father in Enfield and the gas was $3.05 vs $3.20 + in Connecticut.


----------



## Grassi21 (May 30, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> I gassed up in Massachusetts last week after visiting my father in Enfield and the gas was $3.05 vs $3.20 + in Connecticut.



Yeah, we noticed the difference when we were up at the Cape this past weekend.


----------



## hammer (May 30, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> The news on T.V this morning mentioned that the Connecticut legislature is considering a gas tax holiday for this summer's driving season. A $0.25 break per gallon would help a bit, but I am a bit leary of higher taxes somewhere else down the road.
> 
> I gassed up in Massachusetts last week after visiting my father in Enfield and the gas was $3.05 vs $3.20 + in Connecticut.


I never get gas in CT if I can avoid it...not as bad as CA but  seems to be worse than all neighboring states.

Strange thing is that gas prices in NJ are decent even though they only have full serve.


----------



## ctenidae (May 30, 2007)

hammer said:


> Strange thing is that gas prices in NJ are decent even though they only have full serve.



A lot of gasoline comes in through NJ, so transportation costs are lower. I think they have lower state taxes, too.


----------



## snoseek (May 30, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> The news on T.V this morning mentioned that the Connecticut legislature is considering a gas tax holiday for this summer's driving season. A $0.25 break per gallon would help a bit, but I am a bit leary of higher taxes somewhere else down the road.
> 
> I gassed up in Massachusetts last week after visiting my father in Enfield and the gas was $3.05 vs $3.20 + in Connecticut.



i'm not an expert, but this just seems @$$nine to me. this is really just further prolonging the problem, and sounds like a move by politicians to gain popularity. I don't even want to know what the effects on the taxes would be. damn politicians need to look beyond 4 years.:smash:


----------



## ctenidae (May 30, 2007)

snoseek said:


> damn politicians need to look beyond 4 years.:smash:



We all do. I'd settle for the general public looking beyond next week.


----------



## Marc (May 30, 2007)

Oook, I'll bite, and hopefully won't get political in the process.  Or offend anyone.



Warp Daddy said:


> Unfortunately in an oligopoly there is VERY  little competition and  even fewer reaonable alternatives and a leadership frankly that is moribund.



It's true there are huge barriers to entry in the hydrocarbon refining and distribution market, but in general, we are still paying a very low price for gasoline, compared to what could be charged and what other countries pay.



Warp Daddy said:


> . Hell we've been CONSERVING , limiting  HP and size and maxing efficiency ( 4 cylinder engines since the first  energy crisis in 1973) long before most of you were born  !
> Many folks also maxed out home heating efficiency with ENERGY STAR upgrades  R40  insulation , 90+++ eff furnaces , Green products in the  home etc , car pooling , biking , walking etc -
> Realistically WHAT the HELL more can be done by the  average citizen  ??



That's good.  To continue to help should mean educating yourself more.  Look for a diesel car, which I think helps more in the long run than feel good hybrids.  Install a geothermal heating system in your home.  Or solar.



Warp Daddy said:


> And yet these greed hogs still produce RECORD PROFITS and  pay obscene bonuses to their damn CEO"S



A few points of order here - the government makes much more in tax off a gallon of gas than the any oil company makes in profits.  They're making record profits because of record demand and record market prices.  Their profit *margins* are still in line with historical figures for the industry.  You may consider the bonuses and compensation obscene, but that is what the market demands.  They're making money for their shareholders and doing a fine job of it.  Go get yourself an MBA, work hard for several years and rise through the ranks of a corporation until you're responsible for the jobs of several thousands of people and you can earn similar wages... if your own skills deem you that valuable.

Besides which, even if the CEO's and other upper management weren't paid anything, because of the volume of product they sell and the costs to produce, it wouldn't be enough to drop the price of a gallon of gas even a penny.



Warp Daddy said:


> Sorry for the rant ----------but i'm not buying that this isnt a contrived situation .-
> 
> -Why no new refineries in the last 3 decades ??  Why no goal about energy independence from  Middle East oil  similar to the goal John Kennedy set in 1960 that within 10 yrs we'd be on the  moon . Why ?



There's no incentive to build new refineries.  The ones we have currently are keeping up with demand, they operate on relatively small profit margins, they're incredibly expensive and the environmental and safety restrictions and red tape (not to mention local public outcry when one is proposed) means no new refineries.  The existing refineries have all expanded output several times, however.  It's much easier to do that than build a new one.

I'm probably getting myself into a lot of trouble with this post, but if there's anything I've learned, it's that I'm very good at getting myself into trouble.


----------



## Greg (May 30, 2007)

Marc said:


> You may consider the bonuses and compensation obscene, but that is what the market demands.  They're making money for their shareholders and doing a fine job of it.  Go get yourself an MBA, work hard for several years and rise through the ranks of a corporation until you're responsible for the jobs of several thousands of people and you can earn similar wages... if your own skills deem you that valuable.



BRAVO!!! :beer:

I'll say it again. I still will never understand why those that are successful in life financially are often times looked negatively upon. Maybe a jealousy thing? I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me...


----------



## ctenidae (May 30, 2007)

Dag, marc stepping up. It must be the re-use of the Bill Avatar. Can't disagree with anything you say.

I will add this- there's no energy independence goal for about 9,824 political reasons, 4,627 economic reasons, and a hand full of environmental reasons.


----------



## loafer89 (May 30, 2007)

I really do not have a problem with paying the gas tax, Connecticut has a well maintained, toll free highway system. No other nearby state, save Vermont has 100% toll free roads. Driving from Long Island to Belleayre used to cost me $13.20 in TOLLS alone.

Like I said, we will pay for a reduction in tax now, down the road somewhere.


----------



## jack97 (May 30, 2007)

Marc said:


> That's good.  To continue to help should mean educating yourself more.  Look for a diesel car, which I think helps more in the long run than feel good hybrids.



That's interesting, what makes you say that? Is diesel more efficient to make and/or to consume?


----------



## ctenidae (May 30, 2007)

jack97 said:


> That's interesting, what makes you say that? Is diesel more efficient to make and/or to consume?



Diesels run more efficiently, and the environmental impacts of the hybrid's batteries (plus all teh extra plastic that goes into them) can be substantial. Plus, diesel fuels can be made from a variety of non-petroleum sources.


----------



## Greg (May 30, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> The news on T.V this morning mentioned that the Connecticut legislature is considering a gas tax holiday for this summer's driving season. A $0.25 break per gallon would help a bit, but I am a bit leary of higher taxes somewhere else down the road.



Check this out:

http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?a=1317&q=379690

I agree though. Those lost gas tax revenues will need to be recooped somehow so it's really probably gonna be a wash...


----------



## hammer (May 30, 2007)

Didn't VT have a gas tax break last year?  Did it help or hurt?


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 30, 2007)

If you live in snow country diesels can be a bear to start in the winter so not very practical but folks do have them and they depend on friends like myself to give them a jump to get started on a frosty morning.

Also, the big diesel generators that ski hills used are a big air quality issue and is the reason they are being phased out. Killington used to release more CO2 in the air than Burlington. Not a big fan of diesel, add in the odor......

Regarding odor, love the smell of those biofuel vehicles that use cooking oil they get from restaurants, smells like french fries. yum


----------



## snoseek (May 30, 2007)

thats a lot of revenue lost. seems kind of short sighted to me.


----------



## ctenidae (May 30, 2007)

http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/local_story_150093820

This is why gas prices are so high. Look what happens when they go down...


----------



## Marc (May 30, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> If you live in snow country diesels can be a bear to start in the winter so not very practical but folks do have them and they depend on friends like myself to give them a jump to get started on a frosty morning.
> 
> Also, the big diesel generators that ski hills used are a big air quality issue and is the reason they are being phased out. Killington used to release more CO2 in the air than Burlington. Not a big fan of diesel, add in the odor......
> 
> Regarding odor, love the smell of those biofuel vehicles that use cooking oil they get from restaurants, smells like french fries. yum



All symptoms of older diesels.  New automatic glowplug systems have really eliminated cold weather starting problems.  Several diesels have been made and are currently being offered that meet EPA Tier 2 emmisions requirements and new solid particulate filters have elminated the sooty, black smoke from the incomplete combustion conditions.  The big issue from diesels is the release of nitrogen oxides, not CO2 anyway.  With new high pressure injectors and the (finally) wide spread availability of low sulfur diesel, this is much less of a concern.  Tier 2 restricts nitrogen oxides quite strictly.  European emissions standards allow diesels to output nearly seven times the concentration of nitrogen oxides than gas jobs to promote the use of diesels.

The newest diesels I'd be willing to bet would be nearly indistinguishable in operation from a gasoline car.

Now consider this:  A new diesel can get similar fuel mileage to a gas electric hybrid because diesel fuel has a higher energy and mass density than gasoline and produces more power than a gas-hybrid.  Also a diesel can potentially be much more efficient in certain conditions like highway driving where hybrids can't take advantage of regenerative breaking and the extra hardware is only a weight penalty.

Now also consider that diesels are lubricated partially by their own fuel, run at lower over all engine speeds and are built much heftier than most gasoline cars to handle the higher compression ratios and the result is an engine that can last several hundred thousand miles with proper maintenance.

Also consider that diesels can burn bio diesel or crude diesel indiscriminately.

Then consider the environmental penalties paid for the manufacture and disposal of the NiMH batteries currently used in hybrids, which won't have even a third of the service life a diesel engine will.  And Toyota is currently switching to Lithium Ion which present even more of an environmental concern with regards to disposal.

ctenidae... I think I had a stroke when I saw Carl again.  That would probably explain it.

:dunce:


----------



## ski_resort_observer (May 31, 2007)

Marc said:


> All symptoms of older diesels.  New automatic glowplug systems have really eliminated cold weather starting problems.  Several diesels have been made and are currently being offered that meet EPA Tier 2 emmisions requirements and new solid particulate filters have elminated the sooty, black smoke from the incomplete combustion conditions.  The big issue from diesels is the release of nitrogen oxides, not CO2 anyway.  With new high pressure injectors and the (finally) wide spread availability of low sulfur diesel, this is much less of a concern.  Tier 2 restricts nitrogen oxides quite strictly.  European emissions standards allow diesels to output nearly seven times the concentration of nitrogen oxides than gas jobs to promote the use of diesels.
> 
> The newest diesels I'd be willing to bet would be nearly indistinguishable in operation from a gasoline car.
> 
> ...



Good info....unfortunately here in Vermont a new car is considered any car that is younger than 10 years and has under 100,000 so the diesels around here are mostly the old ones.:wink:

Regarding ski hill diesel output I remember reading that the state flies around checking CO2 every so often and for many years the air above kmart was the worst for CO2 from the diesels. Becoming a moot point as they are going away. 

On another front, the EI numbers just came out a few minutes ago, considered important as it comes out around Memorial Day and it looks like it favors the hope that prices at the pump will remain flat or even go down if a big hurricane does not hit the gulf. 

Even tho crude inventories were down, unleaded gas inventories are up and the refineries are now producing at a 91.7% rate which is good as compared to below 90% for the last few months. The price of crude has gone down this week and the price of unleaded gas futures has been dropping for almost 2 weeks now. Demand has gone down which was a surprise and does add to the pressure to stop the increase. 

As I have said in previous posts the national average price at the pump will never get to $4 a gallon. Right now it's at about $3.21 with $3.05 in Boston and $3.57 in San Fransisco. I bought gas the other day for $2.98

Keep your fingers crossed!


----------



## MarkC (May 31, 2007)

I have not read the entire thread but the thought of it costing me $60 to get from long island to my house near plattekill in roxbury really hurts.


----------



## loafer89 (Jun 1, 2007)

I just finished changing more of the incandescent light bulbs in our house to compact flourescent, and I just figured that with the 20 bulbs replaced so far we have reduced our lighting energy consumption from 1200 watts to 315. So I wonder what reducing 885 watts will save me, and I have quite a lot more bulbs to replace.

I suppose every bit of conservation helps in the long run.


----------



## snoseek (Jun 1, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> I just finished changing more of the incandescent light bulbs in our house to compact flourescent, and I just figured that with the 20 bulbs replaced so far we have reduced our lighting energy consumption from 1200 watts to 315. So I wonder what reducing 885 watts will save me, and I have quite a lot more bulbs to replace.
> 
> I suppose every bit of conservation helps in the long run.



I think these bulbs last a lot longer. right? if that's the case then it's a no brainer. 

I let the g.f. handle this stuff.


----------



## loafer89 (Jun 1, 2007)

They are supposed to last 3-4 times as long as a standard incandescent bulb.


----------



## Marc (Jun 1, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> They are supposed to last 3-4 times as long as a standard incandescent bulb.



More, actually.  Average incandescent service life is somewhere around 1000 hours at best.  CFL's can go for 15,000.


----------



## loafer89 (Jun 1, 2007)

I hope so, but I also read some studies where the bulbs lost half of there luminescence after reaching only 40% into there predicted lifespan. Also these bulbs do not do well in a location where they are being turned on/off frequently, which is where I have alot of them placed in my house, so we will see.

I am doing it more for the enviornment than for my wallet, by helping to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions used to produce the electricity I use.


----------



## Marc (Jun 1, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> I hope so, but I also read some studies where the bulbs lost half of there luminescence after reaching only 40% into there predicted lifespan. Also these bulbs do not do well in a location where they are being turned on/off frequently, which is where I have alot of them placed in my house, so we will see.
> 
> I am doing it more for the enviornment than for my wallet, by helping to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions used to produce the electricity I use.



Well you don't have to do all that.


Build yourself a small nuclear reactor and take yourself off grid.  That's probably what I'll do.


----------



## andyzee (Jun 2, 2007)

For some reason, every time I see this thread, I think of this song (Feel free to delete if it's inappropriate for this site):

DENIS LEARY - ASSHOLE

(Spoken)
Folks, I'd like to sing a song about the American dream.
About me, about you, about the way our American hearts beat way down
in the bottom of our chests. About the special feeling we get in the
cockles of our hearts, maybe below the cockles, maybe in the subcockle
area. Maybe in the liver. Maybe in the kidneys. Maybe even in the
colon, we don't know.

(Sung)
I'm just a regular Joe with a regular job.
I'm your average white suburbanite slob.
I like football and porno and books about war.
I've got an average house with a nice hardwood floor.

My wife and my job, my kids and my car.
My feet on my table and a cuban cigar.

But sometimes that just ain't enough to keep a man like me interested
(oh no) no way (uh-uh)
No, I've gotta go out and have fun at someone else's expense
(oh yeah) Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
I drive really slow in the ultra-fast lane,
While people behind me are going insane.

I'm an asshole (He's an asshole, what an asshole)
I'm an asshole (He's an asshole, such an asshole)
I use public toilets and piss on the seat,
I walk around in the summertime saying "How about this heat?"
I'm an asshole (He's an asshole, what an asshole)
I'm an asshole (He's the world's biggest asshole)
Sometimes I park in handicapped spaces,
While handicapped people make handicapped faces.
I'm an asshole (He's an asshole, what an asshole)
I'm an asshole (He's a real fucking asshole)

Maybe I shouldn't be singing this song
Ranting and raving and carrying on
Maybe they're right when they tell me I'm wrong
NAAAAH!

I'm an asshole (he's an asshole, what an asshole)
I'm an asshole (he's the world's biggest asshole)

(Spoken)
*Know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadillac El Dorado,*
*hot-fuckin'-pink, with whaleskin hubcaps and all-leather cow interior and big*
*brown baby seal eyes for headlights... yeah! And I'm gonna drive around in*
*that baby doing 115 miles an hour, getting 1 mile per gallon, suckin' down*
*quarter pound cheeseburgers from McDonald's in the old-fashioned non-*
*biodegradable styrofoam containers...* yeah! And when I'm done suckin' down
those greaseball burgers I'm gonna toss the styrofoam containers right out the
side, and there ain't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it. You know why?
Because we got the bombs, that's why... yeah! Two words--nuclear fuckin'
weapons, OK? Russia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, they can have all the democracy
they want...they can have a democracy cakewalk right through the middle of
Tienamen Square and it won't make a lick of fuckin' difference, because we got
the bombs, OK? John Wayne's not dead--he's frozen! And when we find a cure for
cancer, we're gonna thaw out the Duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off. You
know why? You ever taken a cold shower? Well, multiply that by 15 million
times--that's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be. I'm gonna get the Duke and
John Casavetti and Sam Peckinpaw and a case of fuckin' whisky and drive...

(Hey, hey, hey, hey, you know you really are an asshole?)

Why don't you shut up and sing the song, Chris. I thought I was the 
asshole... all the time it was him... what an asshole!

(Sung)
I'm an asshole (I'm an asshole, he's an asshole)
I'm an asshole (He's the world's biggest asshole)
A S-S H-O L-E
Everybody, A S-S H-O L-E
Ay Ay-Ay Ay-Ay Ay-Ay
A-thoom A-thoom-thoom A-thoom-thoom A-thoom-thoom
Oooooooo

(Spoken)
I'm an asshole and I'm proud of it!

(Chris mouths: Asshole


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 2, 2007)

loafer89 said:


> I just finished changing more of the incandescent light bulbs in our house to compact flourescent, and I just figured that with the 20 bulbs replaced so far we have reduced our lighting energy consumption from 1200 watts to 315. So I wonder what reducing 885 watts will save me, and I have quite a lot more bulbs to replace.
> 
> I suppose every bit of conservation helps in the long run.


This is really the no brainer consumer oriented economics that must happen for decreasing our personal energy usage to be a issue everyone can participate in on a large and significant scale. When the economics point to dramatic cost savings on part of the consumer and becomes a "no brainer," these new green solutions will take hold quickly. We noticed a 1/3 decrease in our electricity bill by switching to the new light bulbs... and we are very good about always turning lights off. I suspect a bigger house that always has lights on could save up to as much as 50%. The fact that they last longer means less replacement costs too, total no brainer and I am surprised regular light bulbs are still sold in significant numbers.


----------



## Marc (Jun 2, 2007)

Of course CFL still present that pesky mercury problem.


----------



## Marc (Jun 2, 2007)

Always a trade off.


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 2, 2007)

Yea, I forgot to mention about the Mercury issue. But it is an extremely small amount. Still, most people will probably throw them in the trash instead of finding the proper disposable hazardous waste center. Problem for many people is there may not be such a center nearby.


----------



## hammer (Jun 2, 2007)

I've been slowly replacing some of the lights in my house with CFLs now...not sure what the savings will be but I do tend to keep lights on more than I should so hopefully I'll see a big savings.

There are a few disadvantages, though...
The light output is a bit low when they first turn on.  This is noticeable in a high-output CFL I have in my basement,
I have a lot of dinner switches in my house, and CFLs can't run on them.
As far as the mercury issue is concerned, I'll just need to keep any used bulbs around until my town's annual hazardous waste collection...no big deal.  If one breaks, though, in the trash it goes.


----------



## Marc (Jun 2, 2007)

Meh, I used to play with the mercury from broken thermometers and I'm perfectly normal today.


----------



## Marc (Jun 2, 2007)

Ride a bike without a helmet.


----------



## Marc (Jun 2, 2007)

Yeah, latex paint just doesn't have that magic aftertaste that lead does.  What is this world coming to?


----------



## YardSaleDad (Jun 3, 2007)

Greg said:


> BRAVO!!! :beer:
> 
> I'll say it again. I still will never understand why those that are successful in life financially are often times looked negatively upon. Maybe a jealousy thing? I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me...



It the ones who are successful at the expense of society that tend to garner negative vibes.  Bill Gates does not have an MBA, treats his employees relatively well and gives back to society in substantial ways.  Contrast that with Enron.


Maybe it's an ethics thing.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 4, 2007)

The trouble with CFL's in the house is that they do nothing for reducing peak load. They'll save you money, sure, but they don't actually result in any reduction in emissions from power plants. Now, if you could get your office to switch, that would have something of an impact.


----------



## snoseek (Jun 4, 2007)

YardSaleDad said:


> It the ones who are successful at the expense of society that tend to garner negative vibes.  Bill Gates does not have an MBA, treats his employees relatively well and gives back to society in substantial ways.  Contrast that with Enron.
> 
> 
> Maybe it's an ethics thing.



making a bit of sense here...


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 4, 2007)

This is a pretty interesting thread.  And I'm amazed how it didn't get political!

I hope this isn't off-topic, but, with ski season just around the corner, what do we do about transport to the mountains?  A Prius or Civic or whatever is nice and all, but for those of us that have a way's to go to get to the mountains, what do we drive?

Anyone given any thought to good cars/trucks for skiing that won't break the bank at the pump?  Or, since ski gear isn't getting smaller, do we just have to chalk this one up to "skiing is expensive"?

I haven't seen anything on the market that would fit the bill.  But, I haven't looked too hard yet.


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2007)

snoseek said:


> making a bit of sense here...



I think Greg and YSD are speaking of two different groups of people.  Greg was speaking of those who think making money period may be somehow inherently evil, or that someone besides the BOD should be responsible for setting compensation of upper management, or just the very fact that people outside the company make moral judgement based on compensation vs perceived value to the company (or more often, perceived value to society, which is a bit of a crock).

Everyone, including me, I think are appalled by the actions of those found guilty of embezzlement, fixing records, and lying to shareholders.  I think more than anyone, rival CEO's and the like should be happy with the outcome from trials like Ken Lay and Dennis Koslowski, because they weren't playing by the rules.  Now if there's a group of people who derive disdain for all upper management because of the actions of criminals, there isn't much that can be done to help that faulty line of logic (or emotion).


----------



## awf170 (Jun 4, 2007)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> I hope this isn't off-topic, but, with ski season just around the corner, what do we do about transport to the mountains?  A Prius or Civic or whatever is nice and all, but for those of us that have a way's to go to get to the mountains, what do we drive?
> 
> Anyone given any thought to good cars/trucks for skiing that won't break the bank at the pump?  Or, since ski gear isn't getting smaller, do we just have to chalk this one up to "skiing is expensive"?




Just get a corolla or a civic and put snow tires on it.  How often do you really run into snow deeper than 6-8 inches of main roads?  Plus it will be way better at braking then a 4x4 SUV or Pickup since it weighs so much less.


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2007)

awf170 said:


> Just get a corolla or a civic and put snow tires on it.  How often do you really run into snow deeper than 6-8 inches of main roads?  Plus it will be way better at braking then a 4x4 SUV or Pickup since it weighs so much less.



If you need room for gear (read: more than one passenger) I'd recommend either a Suby wagon or a crossover SUV (Escape, Rav4 etc.).

You can't have space and 40 mpg.  Just doesn't work.  But you can have adequate space and competent traction with high 20's probably 30 mpg on highways.


----------



## awf170 (Jun 4, 2007)

Marc said:


> If you need room for gear (read: more than one passenger) I'd recommend either a Suby wagon or a crossover SUV (Escape, Rav4 etc.).
> 
> You can't have space and 40 mpg.  Just doesn't work.  But you can have adequate space and competent traction with high 20's probably 30 mpg on highways.



The Rav4 4x4 claims 27mpg which is very good, I'm not sure that I believe it but even 22-24mpg is still good for a 4x4 vehicle.

How much more room do you think a Subie wagon, or a crossover SUV has over a corolla or a civic?  I think it is a lot less than people think.  Some of the new smaller crossover have basically nothing behind the second row.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 4, 2007)

Marc said:


> someone besides the BOD should be responsible for setting compensation of upper management,



You know, this proxy season will be interesting- a lot of companies are getting proxies that allow for a vote of shareholders to approve executive compensation. Most are non-binding votes right now, but the winds, they are a changing.


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2007)

awf170 said:


> The Rav4 4x4 claims 27mpg which is very good, I'm not sure that I believe it but even 22-24mpg is still good for a 4x4 vehicle.
> 
> How much more room do you think a Subie wagon, or a crossover SUV has over a corolla or a civic?  I think it is a lot less than people think.  Some of the new smaller crossover have basically nothing behind the second row.



A lot.  Even your Nissan has a lot more room than a corolla/civic.  Start piling in packs and gear in a small car and you see a huge difference.

An Outback wagon is cavernous compared with a compact.  I've taken a fairly long day trip with five people crammed into an Integra, and it was just a horrible experience.

Although I think I meant to mention the 4Runner, not the Rav4.  Whichever is the one based on the Camry frame.


----------



## awf170 (Jun 4, 2007)

Marc said:


> A lot.  Even your Nissan has a lot more room than a corolla/civic.  Start piling in packs and gear in a small car and you see a huge difference.



Probably.  My dad and I have done a bunch of trips in a civic, and it seems to still have a bunch of room, but adding another person might be a problem.  My altima is actually a pretty good ski vehicle, fits 3 people fine, and still gets over 30 mpg as long as I stay under 70.  No reasonable vehicle is going to fit 4 people without a roof box anyway, so you're better off staying smaller.



Marc said:


> Although I think I meant to mention the 4Runner, not the Rav4.  Whichever is the one based on the Camry frame.



Nope, Rav4 is the small one.


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2007)

Here's some numbers to get a better idea of what I'm talkin about-

Cargo room (cu ft):

Corolla: 12
4Runner: 42
Outback: 33.5
Civic: 11.5
Escape: 30


----------



## hammer (Jun 4, 2007)

Marc said:


> Here's some numbers to get a better idea of what I'm talkin about-
> 
> Cargo room (cu ft):
> 
> ...



Do you have the figures for the SUVs with the rear seats up?  There's no way that my Outback has that much space unless you put the seats down...


----------



## awf170 (Jun 4, 2007)

Marc said:


> Here's some numbers to get a better idea of what I'm talkin about-
> 
> Cargo room (cu ft):
> 
> ...



Yes, but wagons and SUV have way more room vertically, which isn't really used, since you still have to be able to see behind you.  You will only use about half that height.  So it really is more like:
Corolla: 12
4Runner: 21
Outback: 17
Civic: 11.5
Escape: 15

Still more but not a huge deal.  Also, besides the 4runner you still will not be able to fit 4 people + skis in anyone of those vehicles comfortably without a roof box.

(I'm bored and still have another hour to kill before I go to work, so debating cargo room of SUV's vs. sedans is the most interesting thing I have going right now since it is 60 degrees out and raining.)


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2007)

hammer said:


> Do you have the figures for the SUVs with the rear seats up?  There's no way that my Outback has that much space unless you put the seats down...



That's cargo room, which is defined as anything that is not potentially passenger space.  AKA, everything from the rear seats to the back of the car.


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2007)

awf170 said:


> Yes, but wagons and SUV have way more room vertically, which isn't really used, since you still have to be able to see behind you.  You will only use about half that height.  So it really is more like:
> Corolla: 12
> 4Runner: 21
> Outback: 17
> ...



Vertical spaced not used?  Says who?  That defeats the purpose of buying a wagon.  It is not a necessity to see out of your rear view mirror.  Just ask anyone who drives truck for a living.  Just get better at using your sideviews.  The extra cargo room a wagon affords is the only reason I mentioned them in the first place.


----------



## hammer (Jun 4, 2007)

Marc said:


> That's cargo room, which is defined as anything that is not potentially passenger space.  AKA, everything from the rear seats to the back of the car.


I stand corrected...just looked at the figures for the Outback:
*
2008 Subaru Outback*
*Luggage Capacity: *33.5 cu. ft.
*Maximum Cargo Capacity: *65 cu. ft.

Must account for being able to pile the luggage/cargo up to the roof.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Jun 4, 2007)

hammer said:


> I stand corrected...just looked at the figures for the Outback:
> *
> 2008 Subaru Outback*
> *Luggage Capacity: *33.5 cu. ft.
> ...




Thanks for all the ideas.

I checked on the Subarus, and they average low 20s for the city and high 20s for the highway.  Not bad at all.  I don't think there's a "silver bullet," unfortunately.  Wish we had access to the latest European diesels (at the right price).

Regarding luggage capacity vs. cargo capacity, I think it's a question of maximum amount of space with the seats up (luggage capacity) vs. maximum space with all but the two front seats down (cargo capacity).  Could be wrong, though.


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2007)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Thanks for all the ideas.
> 
> I checked on the Subarus, and they average low 20s for the city and high 20s for the highway.  Not bad at all.  I don't think there's a "silver bullet," unfortunately.  Wish we had access to the latest European diesels (at the right price).
> 
> Regarding luggage capacity vs. cargo capacity, I think it's a question of maximum amount of space with the seats up (luggage capacity) vs. maximum space with all but the two front seats down (cargo capacity).  Could be wrong, though.



The numbers I reported were interior volume from the rear seats (in the passenger carrying position) backwards.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jun 4, 2007)

ctenidae said:


> You know, this proxy season will be interesting- a lot of companies are getting proxies that allow for a vote of shareholders to approve executive compensation. Most are non-binding votes right now, but the winds, they are a changing.



I agree, years ago the BOD's  felt they were insulated from the opinions of the common single investors. That is changing and the smart ones are figuring out that ignoring these folks is not good for the bottom line. 

I'm feeling so empowered that I might actually vote when I get the proxies in the mail. :wink:


----------



## Marc (Jun 4, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I agree, years ago the BOD's  felt they were insulated from the opinions of the common single investors. That is changing and the smart ones are figuring out that ignoring these folks is not good for the bottom line.
> 
> I'm feeling so empowered that I might actually vote when I get the proxies in the mail. :wink:



I have no opinion one way or the other on shareholders voting for compensation either.

I dislike when people who have no stake in the company (and usually know very little about the industry or management in general) making moral judgements about what a particular employee is paid.


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 4, 2007)

Marc said:


> I have no opinion one way or the other on shareholders voting for compensation either.
> 
> I dislike when people who have no stake in the company (and usually know very little about the industry or management in general) making moral judgements about what a particular employee is paid.




Fortunately, the only people with enough clout to pass a proxy have huge stakes in teh company.


----------

