CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Get Used to $4 Gas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Get Used to $4 Gas

post #1 of 96
Thread Starter 
Energy Department: Get Used To It

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Motorists can expect gasoline prices around $4 gallon through next year, the Energy Department said Wednesday, with oil prices staying well above $100 a barrel.

Crude oil prices are likely to average $126 a barrel in 2009, $4 higher than this year, as oil supplies and demand are expected to remain tight, Guy Caruso, head of the department's Energy Information Administration, told a House hearing.

Gasoline prices are likely to peak at $4.15 a gallon in August and won't go down much after that, the agency projected in a report. Gasoline was forecast to average $3.92 a gallon through 2009.

The agency said that the high price of gasoline has reduced expected demand for this summer, but not enough to dampen prices.

Caruso told House members that new auto fuel economy requirements and the increased use of ethanol and other alternative fuels are expected to produce "a substantial reduction" in oil use and oil imports over the next two decades.

Predicting future oil and gasoline prices is highly uncertain with the volatile global oil markets, Caruso acknowledged. The agency projects oil prices declining to $86 a barrel in 2010 and then increasing to $107 by 2015.

Overall U.S. oil consumption is expected decline over the next two decades because of the production of more fuel-efficient cars and the growing use of ethanol as a motor fuel, Caruso said. Both were required by Congress last December.

Crude prices, meanwhile, soared Wednesday well above Caruso's projections as his agency announced that U.S. oil inventories fell more than expected last week. Light, sweet crude for July delivery jumped $4.50 to nearly $136 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Oil inventories fell by 4.6 million barrels last week, a much larger amount than had been predicted by analysts.
The only way I see this not coming true is if A) Democrats get more seats in the House and Senate; B) Obama is elected President; and C) they try to pass the tax on the oil industry's windfall profits; a bill that was just blocked by Republicans.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind $4 a gas if our cars had higher fuel-economy standards. People always point to Europe's high gas prices but they forget that they have cars with way better mpg.
post #2 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
The only way I see this not coming true is if A) Democrats get more seats in the House and Senate; B) Obama is elected President; and C) they try to pass the tax on the oil industry's windfall profits; a bill that was just blocked by Republicans.
How does any of this affect the price of oil? As far as I can tell, it is controlled by people outside of this country that don't give two shits what we care. A windfall tax brings down the price how?

If we want to bring down the price, then we should do more drilling here in the US. Drill right through some fucking elk and baby seals into the ground to find the oil.
post #3 of 96
Yeah! Fuck nature!
post #4 of 96
As far as I know there are only a few ways to bring down the prices of oil.

*Pump more domestic oil and reduce import.
*Oversaturate supply.
*Reduce taxes on oil.
*Subsidize
post #5 of 96
Thread Starter 
The tax can be used as a subsidy. That way we're not having a gas-tax holiday that takes jobs away from construction projects and the people who are hurting consumers instead take the hurt themselves.

The global economy is dictating the price of oil but there are those who taking advantage of the instability in the Middle East to hurt consumers.
post #6 of 96
I heard Congressman Peter DeFazio (D, OR) on the (great) Thom Hartmann program talking about some of the factors going into this current price f**k.
Quote:
Peter DeFazio: There's no shortage of crude. Remember, oil went up $11 a barrel on Friday while demand is plummeting for the finished product. The immediate crunch is shortage of refinery capacity and ExxonMobil says, 'Hey, we're not going to (play) more refineries; in fact, we've been closing refineries.' Valero, second largest producer, saying, 'We're doing very well the way it is. We're not going to build refineries.' Yet the Republicans talk about, 'Democrats are preventing refineries.' No. The industry has been colluding to close refineries, make it more profitable, restrict supply, use it as an excuse to drive up the price.

Peter DeFazio: Second big factor is speculation. We don't know how big it is. The estimates are $.50 a gallon. That's the Enron loophole. Ken Lay, he's dead. Enron, they're bankrupt. But the loophole they got for energy commodities trading lives on ... I voted against it. It was pretty clear to see what totally deregulating the commodities markets and allowing them to create these incredible speculative instruments-- I mean, it's driving up the price of food, driving up the price of fuel.

Peter DeFazio: Then third, you have collusion by OPEC, and instead of filing a complaint under the WTO, which they're violating article 20 of GATT-- Bush goes over, holds hands with the Saudi princes, begs, and then they say no.

Peter DeFazio: So, here we are, those are the major factors, and what do they talk about? 'Well, we need more leases!' Well, gee, if they need more leases, why don't they first develop the ones they have, remember? ... Clinton leased the Naval Petroleum Reserve to the oil industry eight years ago. Twenty five exploratory wells. We know there's a sea of oil under there. We've been sitting on that for 75 years. We don't know if there's oil on ANWR. They haven't developed one producing well. None.

Thom Hartmann: Why not? They're just sitting on this stuff till prices go to $250 a barrel?

Peter DeFazio: Why not? And then the same thing off-shore. They've got 10,000 permits on-shore and off-shore that they haven't developed. The estimates from our own mineral management service is that 80% of the available or potential oil off-shore is already available under existing permits, but 6,492 of them are not yet developed. There are other estimates that 68 million acres of land that they've leased, land and water, that are currently idle, that could produce another 4.8 million barrels a day, 44 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day. That would double our domestic production of oil.

Peter DeFazio: Now, why aren't they developing those things? They don't need a whole bunch more leases to get a property right on to sit on forever. What they need to do is go out and develop stuff.
Here it in podcast form here.

Pretty interesting in light of how the media is covering the current gas crisis.
post #7 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
The tax can be used as a subsidy.

The global economy is dictating the price of oil but there are those who taking advantage of the instability in the Middle East to hurt consumers.
Who gets the subsidy? Am I going to get a check every month to offset the money I spend?

As to Laverne DeFazio's pop, if that is truly the case, and I suspect that that isn't the entire truth, instead of jacking their asses for the tax money, let them keep the money and create legislation to force them to develop these domestic areas. Give them X numbers of years to produce X number of barrels. If they fuck that up, then fine their asses like its going out of style.

As to all the supposed leased land just out there, I suspect that if tomorrow all kinds of new rigs started going up, there would be some environmentalists out there screaming their heads off to get them to stop. You can't even cut down a fucking tree, but splashing crude all over while you drilling is going to be A-OK.
post #8 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
The only way I see this not coming true is if A) Democrats get more seats in the House and Senate; B) Obama is elected President; and C) they try to pass the tax on the oil industry's windfall profits; a bill that was just blocked by Republicans.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind $4 a gas if our cars had higher fuel-economy standards. People always point to Europe's high gas prices but they forget that they have cars with way better mpg.
I don't see A-D doing anything at all to gas prices. Partisanship needs to be set aside here, the Democrats do not have a miracle cure for gas prices. Taxing the oil profits is a bad idea. Howeber I agree that we can and should reduce or eliminate tax breaks the oil and gas firms get today (which amounts to $17 Billion a year I believe). If a company makes godloads of money there is no reason to susbsidize them. But taxing them for being successful and working supply and demand? Sorry, that's against our Capitalist system and leads down a slippery slope. Hey you! You're too damn successful! Give me some of that money!

Personally, I am FUCKING GLAD that gas costs $4 a gallon. Hell, make it $6! That is the ONLY way that Americans will stop buying these giant dumb ass cars and consider alternatives. Expensive gas burns me as well as I have no choice but to drive 17 miles to work each day in Atlant's shit-ass traffic and I have had to make choices due to the lack of income from expensive gas. But it's about damn time something hurt people's pocketbooks enough to make them reconsider buying that 4x4 or sports car that only uses premium gas.
post #9 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
As to all the supposed leased land just out there, I suspect that if tomorrow all kinds of new rigs started going up, there would be some environmentalists out there screaming their heads off to get them to stop. You can't even cut down a fucking tree, but splashing crude all over while you drilling is going to be A-OK.
My dad does shallow water oil stuff. And if they so much as fart wrong they will get fined back to the stone ages.
post #10 of 96
Exactly. The bottom line is that we need to vigorously pursue alternatives to fossil fuels. There is hybrid technolgy for 100 mpg cars, experimentation with solar panels on cars, not to mention wind, geothermal and solar energy.

The whole closed oil market is such a vast conspiracy to thwart progress. It's only corporate financial interest that keeps fossil fuels so profitable.

And electrichead, you're right; I don't want to the oil companies to drill for those reserves, but the point worth making is that the oil industry doesn't need ANWR. It's a load of $@#.
post #11 of 96
I really doubt this hurts those people the most.

It's the family with the 1985 Chevy Econoline that gets fucked.
post #12 of 96
Judge, I'd like to qualify your statement by adding that "people who don't fucking need giant big ass cars should stop fucking buying them". I understand the need for trucks and jeeps for trade. Ain't no way you're hauling lumber or plumbing gear in a Prius. To soccer moms and various other suburban dwellers (and especially urban dwellers: really, a hummer in NYC? Fuck you.): odds are you aren't going to be hitting any off road on your way to the god damn Short Hills Mall.
post #13 of 96
You say that now but when the zombie apocalypse happens, how many bodies can your Corolla run over before it just can't anymore?
post #14 of 96
I think of the Harvey Dent quote "its always darkest before the dawn, but the dawn is coming"

I totally agree that the Democrats have no miracle cure, but America is in the dark, and it will just get worse if we dig for oil, as thats just delaying the much needed change. I mean its going to get worse as we will have to go through the hoops of fire to get everyone on more fuel economic vehicles cars.

Hell, infrastructures will probably need to be redone, but we got to go through the worse to get things better.

Christ I miss the Cold War, at least we were all trying to innovate then.
post #15 of 96
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Exactly. The bottom line is that we need to vigorously pursue alternatives to fossil fuels. There is hybrid technolgy for 100 mpg cars, experimentation with solar panels on cars, not to mention wind, geothermal and solar energy.

The whole closed oil market is such a vast conspiracy to thwart progress. It's only corporate financial interest that keeps fossil fuels so profitable.

And electrichead, you're right; I don't want to the oil companies to drill for those reserves, but the point worth making is that the oil industry doesn't need ANWR. It's a load of $@#.
I'm all for that technology but we need a short term solution, especially with food prices and the unemployment rate so high.

I don't know if taxing the windfall profits will do anything. I wish I had better knowledge of economics. What I do know is that we need something and we need it soon.
post #16 of 96
True. There are going to be seas of second and third generation used dinosaur SUVs funneling down through the cost brackets that will put the highest fuel costs on the poorest people.

A real fix would be to have some massive auto recall that retrofits all cars on the road with hybrid engines.
post #17 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter DeFazio View Post
Speculation. We don't know how big it is. The estimates are $.50 a gallon. That's the Enron loophole. Ken Lay, he's dead. Enron, they're bankrupt. But the loophole they got for energy commodities trading lives on ... I voted against it. It was pretty clear to see what totally deregulating the commodities markets and allowing them to create these incredible speculative instruments-- I mean, it's driving up the price of food, driving up the price of fuel.
Limiting our fossil fuel dependence shold obviously be a top priority. That said, what really bothers me is that what DeFazio talks about above is almost completely ignored as a cause of rising prices. More drilling isn't the answer and an ill-advised gas-tax holiday certainly isn't a cure. We need to push for regulation of the speculative market for petroleum if we want to see any kind of sgnificant change in pricing in the short term.
post #18 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Exactly. The bottom line is that we need to vigorously pursue alternatives to fossil fuels. There is hybrid technolgy for 100 mpg cars, experimentation with solar panels on cars, not to mention wind, geothermal and solar energy.
You are right about that. The issues Goldberg brought up were about bringing down the price of gas, not finding an alternative. That is the key to all this shit, and everyone keeps blaming the car manufacturers or oil companies. Oil companies want to keep shit the way it is, auto people are losing their asses, so you know they are going to figure something out or die.

The fix to this is to find different energy sources, but no one wants to talk about that, only bitch about the money the oil companies make. If we want to fuck the oil companies, then develop new energy sources, stop buying gas, and they will get a major ass fucking.
post #19 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
I'm all for that technology but we need a short term solution, especially with food prices and the unemployment rate so high.

I don't know if taxing the windfall profits will do anything. I wish I had better knowledge of economics. What I do know is that we need something and we need it soon.
Close the Enron loophole and set massive fines on those brokerage firms that defrauded consumers (allegedly Morgan Stanley, to start), Sue OPEC under GATT, cap gas prices and as a national security issue, release strategic oil reserve crude and require the oil companies to put more existing refineries online.

?? Could work.
post #20 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrichead View Post
auto people are losing their asses, so you know they are going to figure something out or die.
Of course. Hummer (GM) is going crazy trying to get rid of their vehicles.

Just look back to the 70s. Cheap, efficient imports took over the domestic gas guzzlers quickly.

I don't think hybrids are the answer yet. They cost way too much to make, and they haven't been around long enough for people to realize how much they are going to suck when they start breaking down.
post #21 of 96
My understanding of the Windfall Profit Tax is not that it's supposed to bring oil prices down, but to encourage (force) oil companies to invest in renewable energies. In other words, they get an exemption from the new tax if they invest those profits into R&D on renewable/alternative energy. So it's money they would be losing either way, they might as well invest it in what will be a profitable business for them. Am I understanding this correctly?
post #22 of 96
You are right about the hybrids. You really only need them for larger cars. I have a little honda civic, regular, and I squeeze 35 mpg out of that no problem. Just get smaller cars and they automatically come with better gas mileage for the most part.
post #23 of 96
Billylove, I've had a Prius for five years and (knock on wood), it's been great. I'd rather have the upgrade to plug in/hybrid, which gives you 100 mpg, but I'm in much better shape in terms of weekly fuel costs.

My worry about a gas tax holiday or windfall profits tax is that bandaids could lessen the degree of urgency we face in dealing with these problems in a real way. Jimmy Carter saw the problem 30 years ago, but all of his leaps forward were deep sixed immediately by Reagan. Government is not going to do it as long as industry wields such vast power over it. It has to be a people's movement for change.
post #24 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z-Man View Post
My understanding of the Windfall Profit Tax is not that it's supposed to bring oil prices down, but to encourage (force) oil companies to invest in renewable energies. In other words, they get an exemption from the new tax if they invest those profits into R&D on renewable/alternative energy. So it's money they would be losing either way, they might as well invest it in what will be a profitable business for them. Am I understanding this correctly?
There is no way oil companies will invest in the competition.
post #25 of 96
Yeah, but if Exxon develops the clean energy, then it's not the competition. It's Exxon Solar or whatever.
post #26 of 96
Except that solar energy isn't a closed market the way oil is. It's not a profitable pursuit, much like GM's flirtation with the EV1, which it subsequently killed.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting debunking of a claim coming out of the recent oil talks:

Quote:
Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech Wednesday to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, picked up the refrain. Cheney quoted a column by George Will, who wrote last week that "drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are."

In his speech, Cheney described the Chinese as being "in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to higher prices means more supply."

"But Congress says no to drilling in ANWR, no to drilling on the East Coast, no to drilling on the West Coast," Cheney added.

...

"China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight.

...

China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government, but it's to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Pinon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling, and nothing offshore.

Western diplomats in Havana tell McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge, there is no Chinese drilling in or around Cuba.

"I've never heard anything about this," said one diplomat from a country in the hemisphere.
More at McClatchy .
post #27 of 96
anyone here every read or watch "Our Energy Challenge" by Richard E. Smalley. http://cohesion.rice.edu/NaturalScie...S%20Boston.pdf
post #28 of 96
Fuck $4.00 a gallon. A gas station down the road from me is $4.69. It jumped almost $.30 a gallon since I last filled up (I fill up once a week).

Nothing the Democrats are proposing will solve our immediate gas problems. Obama's little speech about investing in renewable energies won't become fruitful for what 5 years? You figure if they come up with a bang up solution next year, they have to do testing and certification etc.. then they have to develop the framework for the vehicle once that is done they have to either build new manufacturing facilities or retrofit them then once they've done that then we might see some of those nifty new cars..

We need more immediate solutions regardless of the outcome of the next election.

Also, if you back out the taxes levied on gas in Europe, they're paying cheaper than us for a gallon of gas.

The problem is market manipulation. We need to have some serious oversight on that and find out who is doing it and stop it. You know we suspended putting oil into the strategic reserve and that has zero impact on the price of oil or the price at the pump?

OPEC has gone on the record and said the price of oil per barrel should be about $60. There is no supply and demand problems, the only reason it went up after Katrina was because refineries were damaged, why have they gone up now?

As it stands now, I'm paying $1,060.80 more in gas this year than I did last year (estimated) and I'm spending on average, $100 more at the store for the things I normally buy each month that's $2260.80 a year extra that I have to make adjustments in my budget and I don't work that far away and I shop on my way home. I can't even FATHOM what other families are having to accommodate in their budget to make up for these costs.

(Yes, Inflation accounts for some increase but the cost of transportation for goods is passed on to the consumers)
post #29 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Happenin View Post
Judge, I'd like to qualify your statement by adding that "people who don't fucking need giant big ass cars should stop fucking buying them". I understand the need for trucks and jeeps for trade. Ain't no way you're hauling lumber or plumbing gear in a Prius. To soccer moms and various other suburban dwellers (and especially urban dwellers: really, a hummer in NYC? Fuck you.): odds are you aren't going to be hitting any off road on your way to the god damn Short Hills Mall.
Thank you for clarifying Doc, agreed 100%.
post #30 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Nothing the Democrats are proposing will solve our immediate gas problems. Obama's little speech about investing in renewable energies won't become fruitful for what 5 years? You figure if they come up with a bang up solution next year, they have to do testing and certification etc.. then they have to develop the framework for the vehicle once that is done they have to either build new manufacturing facilities or retrofit them then once they've done that then we might see some of those nifty new cars..
During World War II, didn't Roosevelt have all the car factories transform into tank and military hardware manufacturing plants in like 6 months?

I can't help but feel that this "it will take years to see any progress" thinking might be something of an urban myth in that it's unknown on a mass scale, but research has been ongoing on alternate energy since at least the '70s.
post #31 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post
anyone here every read or watch "Our Energy Challenge" by Richard E. Smalley. http://cohesion.rice.edu/NaturalScie...S%20Boston.pdf
Thanks for the link. Reading now.
post #32 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
During World War II, didn't Roosevelt have all the car factories transform into tank and military hardware manufacturing plants in like 6 months?

I can't help but feel that this "it will take years to see any progress" thinking might be something of an urban myth in that it's unknown on a mass scale, but research has been ongoing on alternate energy since at least the '70s.
Little history of your Prius

Quote:
In 1994, Toyota executive Takeshi Uchiyamada was given the task of creating a new car which would be both fuel efficient and environmentally friendly.[6][dead link] The engineering team quickly settled on a hybrid engine design, but many technical and engineering problems had to be solved within the three years that the team was given to bring the car to the Japanese market, a goal they barely achieved as the first Prius went on sale in December 1997. A main problem was the longevity of the battery, which needed to last between 7 and 10 years. The solution the engineers came up with was to keep the battery pack between 60% and 40% charged, proving to be the "sweet spot" for extending the battery life to roughly that of the other car components.[7]

Sales in Europe began at the start of 2001, by which time the car was more than three years old.
Took 3 years to get some prototypes for sale in Japan where they were tested out before they hit the global market 7 years after the initial concept. Same thing happens to all newish vehicles (a lot of testing for US cars is done in California as compared to Japanese cars being tested in Japan).
I was being generous and counting on government support \ bail outs with the 5 year number.

Look at the Chevy Camaro, they announced the prototype back in January 2006 and it isn't even hitting the dealerships until late 2009 as a 2010 model.
post #33 of 96
I remember reading about a Cadillac concept pick up in 1997 issues of MotorTrend.
post #34 of 96
I drive a two door blazer that barely holds me, the wife, and our two kids(both under 5) how much fucking smaller should I go? My kids ain't fucking shrinking and my job forces me to drive thousands of miles a month NOT COUNTING travel to and from the office and personal time. Smaller vehicles does not fix the problem, it's a leaky band aid. $4 a gallon doesn't hurt rich fuckers who can afford huge ass hummers, it hurts poor ass's like me who can't buy a used pinto.
post #35 of 96
Snaieke, astute point, but nonetheless, that development has taken place, at least on Toyota's hybrid engine. There's an urgency now that didn't exist while Toyota was developing the Prius. In fact, they were doing that research while the US government was giving huge tax write-offs to purchasers of SUVs and big polluters.

I don't think the political will and leadership up to this point (at least since Jimmy Carter) is such that herculean feats could be accomplished in concert with global ingenuity and hard work. If the will existed, and there weren't enormous pressure from the hugely powerful oil industry, I can see a lot of this stuff coming together fairly quickly. If you haven't seen Who Killed the Electric Car, it would be great if you'd give it a watch. I'm sure about 60% of it you'll hate, but there are sections toward the end about the great leaps that have occurred in alternatives in transportation.
post #36 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Snaieke, astute point, but nonetheless, that development has taken place, at least on Toyota's hybrid engine. There's an urgency now that didn't exist while Toyota was developing the Prius. In fact, they were doing that research while the US government was giving huge tax write-offs to purchasers of SUVs and big polluters.

I don't think the political will and leadership up to this point (at least since Jimmy Carter) is such that herculean feats could be accomplished in concert with global ingenuity and hard work. If the will existed, and there weren't enormous pressure from the hugely powerful oil industry, I can see a lot of this stuff coming together fairly quickly. If you haven't seen Who Killed the Electric Car, it would be great if you'd give it a watch. I'm sure about 60% of it you'll hate, but there are sections toward the end about the great leaps that have occurred in alternatives in transportation.
I actually have Who Killed the Electric Car on my DVR to watch (It was on one of the premium channels in the last two weeks). I'll give it a look see sometime in the next week as there is nothing on TV in the summer.

The problem is, they're waiting for the next guy and nothing coming out of either candidates mouth indicates that this problem will be address with any urgency. Obama's solution is to fund alternative fuels and to give some of us a $1,000 tax credit which apparently is going to cover our health insurance, gas, prescription drugs and everything else that he has thrown at us when he said "I plan to give middle class Americans a $1,000 tax credit to help pay for that!". Which if he is elected, I won't get until February (or whenever I file, that is, if I qualify.. what is the annual salary cut off on that?) 2010 I'm paying $1,060 more a year NOW. What exactly will he do about gas next year to lower the prices and prevent them from reaching $6.00-8.00 a gallon in June of 2009?

Aside from a holiday on gas I don't really know what McCain's stance is but I'm sure it's no better than Obama's.

We need oversight into the market manipulation. We need to have investigations on price gauging and we need to have a study done to determine what are real immediate solutions (if it's more refineries, do it!) but we need answers and we need them before the lower income citizens are walking to a soup line freezing in the winter because they can't afford heating. We need these things done before January 29th, we need them done yesterday.
post #37 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader View Post
I really doubt this hurts those people the most.

It's the family with the 1985 Chevy Econoline that gets fucked.
I got a 2009 Corolla Sport that fills its gas with $40. When I bought a 2002 Corolla back in 2001 it filled with $15.

AND it lasts less than before, fuck knows why. Those $40 last me three days, max.
post #38 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
We need oversight into the market manipulation. We need to have investigations on price gauging and we need to have a study done to determine what are real immediate solutions (if it's more refineries, do it!) but we need answers and we need them before the lower income citizens are walking to a soup line freezing in the winter because they can't afford heating. We need these things done before January 29th, we need them done yesterday.
We are in 75% agreement, Snaike, which is good. My main difference is that I believe a commission should be set up in congress with public hearings, under oath, on this issue. I implore you (and anyone else reading this) to write to your representatives in congress on this issue.

On another note, contributing to the general lameness of this entire debacle: I heard on the radio today that there is no domestic supply policy in this country, so that even if the oil companies drill and refine more fuel, it will be funneled into the world market. Even though it comes out of the earth under presumably US soil, it is the private property of the oil companies, to do with what they will.
post #39 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
I got a 2009 Corolla Sport that fills its gas with $40. When I bought a 2002 Corolla back in 2001 it filled with $15.

AND it lasts less than before, fuck knows why. Those $40 last me three days, max.
Ethanol is the most likely culprit. Unlike other ethanol-using countries, the US uses corn while other countries use sugar cane. The fuel content of sugar cane is about 3 times that of corn.
post #40 of 96
post #41 of 96
That is good news. Now, if we can stop using oil, coal and other fossil fuels in the power plants, we're on our way. Slowly.
post #42 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyRoommateFloyd View Post
Ethanol is the most likely culprit. Unlike other ethanol-using countries, the US uses corn while other countries use sugar cane. The fuel content of sugar cane is about 3 times that of corn.
So even their gas is tastier! Damn them!
post #43 of 96
Well, that'll make it easier when I'm siphoning their gas tanks.
post #44 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader View Post
So even their gas is tastier! Damn them!
Give us enough time and we can grow sugar cane in Antarctica.
post #45 of 96
Can't we just do it on the backs of mice.
post #46 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Toyota's the wave of the past, welcome to the future!

Quote:
The cars run off air that is compressed into a extremely strong tank. The air is then slowly released, driving an engine that can propel the American version of the car up to 95MPH. The American distributors, Zero Pollution Motors, already has its price set ($17,800) and a design (seen above).

This also comes with a new bit of news about the Air Car's propulsion system. The air tank can only hold so much air, right, so how do they extend the range and power for the American market? Well...what does air do when it's heated? It expands! So MDI has developed a way for the car to get a range of over 800 miles! A small petrol engine heats the air, providing the extra energy necessary to get the car up to 95 MPH and more than triples the vehicle's range. So, indeed, you will have to fill up both a gasoline tank and an air tank to get the car to work.

The bad news is that it takes about an hour to fill the air tank. But, theoretically, the car could come with an at-home charger...since being parked at a gas station for an hour-long fill-up would be pretty horrible. The other bad news is that you'll be burning gasoline...which kinda defeats the purpose...right?

Well, not if the car gets an effective 106 mpg when traveling above 35 mph and doesn't use a drop of gas when going slower than that.

Sounds to me like a pretty good compromise for bringing this otherwise not-very-suited-for-the-American-lifestyle car to America.
still buying a prius next year (2010 model) but it doesn't mean the car after won't be this one (never buy a version 1.0 of anything!!!)
post #47 of 96
That's fucking awesome.
post #48 of 96
That's awesome, but can it please look like a car and not some sort of futuristic pod.

Or futuristic hatchback. I'm looking at you Prius owners.

Maybe a nice 4-door that actually gives you some trunk space.
post #49 of 96
Ever see a tank of compressed air have it's seal compromised? Can't wait to see the youtube videos from the first time that happens in one of those cars.
post #50 of 96
Another reason why gas prices are so high: WEAK DOLLAR.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Get Used to $4 Gas