| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2006 02:14:14 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What's the incentive for someone to spill the beans?
Blacklisting? Being labeled as a troublemaker? The promise of a life of unemployment? Spending YEARS of your life as a witness in the ensuing court battle?
I doubt it's NOT happening, I also doubt that anyone will do anything about it, even if they could. |
If there is a huge price fixing scam going on, a lot of people know about it, even down to gas station attendents, and one of them would have the morals to do the right thing or be thinking "big book deal." It's possible that it's happening, but if it is, it's one of the best kept secrets ever.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 02:19:07 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Because I don't think you would like it if the governemnt told you how much money you can make off a photo. Example: $200 for a photo!!! Too much, new government approved price is now $15. Photographers should not be allowed to profit off people that can't take photos. |
If the government controlled the price of photographs would Gary Fong be allowed to charge $100,000 for shooting a wedding? and would the microstock sites be able to get away with paying photographers a measly 20 cents a shot?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Also, most Americans are not big fans of communism. |
Most americans don't think of communism as an economic system. They equate it to a dicatorial, totalitarian political system.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Nothing is out of hand, If Exxon charged too much for gas, you would buy from someone else. The market is working just as it should. We made Exxon huge by using so much gas. It's our fault. |
Some people think it is out of hand now. Others think it will be soon if things continue as they have. What would you use, LoudDog, to determine when gas prices are so high that something needs to be done to change things?
Part of it is "our fault" because we have bought into the idea of driving big cars, SUVs and pickup trucks for our daily commute. We need to break out of that habit. We also need to realize that the cost of housing should reflect people's earnings within a contracting geographic area.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 02:35:29 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
can you show us some documentation on this ?
Also there was a thing on TV last night talking about how gas could be 4-5 dollars by 4th of july weekend |
//www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22620.shtml
Click that link and look at the difference between E85 and regular gasoline is about 5mpg according to that. My estimate may have been a touch off but I was going by memory. I know there is a large difference.
MattO
Edit to add, it looks like it actually costs more per year to operate a FFV on E85 then to run it on regular fuel.
Message edited by author 2006-05-01 14:36:58.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 02:35:47 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
What's the incentive for someone to spill the beans?
Blacklisting? Being labeled as a troublemaker? The promise of a life of unemployment? Spending YEARS of your life as a witness in the ensuing court battle?
I doubt it's NOT happening, I also doubt that anyone will do anything about it, even if they could. |
If there is a huge price fixing scam going on, a lot of people know about it, even down to gas station attendents, and one of them would have the morals to do the right thing or be thinking "big book deal." It's possible that it's happening, but if it is, it's one of the best kept secrets ever. |
The people at the actual gas stations have very little to do with setting the prices aside from switching around the little plastic numbers on the signs. They do what corporate says to do. It would take very few people at each company to actually set the prices.
Selling out may result in a "book deal", but I doubt it's worth more than the stock options.
I wish I had faith in the morals of people working in big business, but I just don't. Executives are focused on profits because that's what makes the shareholders happy and lines their own pockets. Look at Enron, and that bunch of crooks. How many other Enrons are out there?
Even if an exec wanted to commit career and financial suicide by blowing the whistle, I'm sure they are smart enough to look at what is happening to other whistleblowers and saying to themselves, "I don't want any part of that."
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 03:08:34 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Because I don't think you would like it if the governemnt told you how much money you can make off a photo. Example: $200 for a photo!!! Too much, new government approved price is now $15. Photographers should not be allowed to profit off people that can't take photos. |
If the government controlled the price of photographs would Gary Fong be allowed to charge $100,000 for shooting a wedding? and would the microstock sites be able to get away with paying photographers a measly 20 cents a shot?
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Also, most Americans are not big fans of communism. |
Most americans don't think of communism as an economic system. They equate it to a dicatorial, totalitarian political system.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Nothing is out of hand, If Exxon charged too much for gas, you would buy from someone else. The market is working just as it should. We made Exxon huge by using so much gas. It's our fault. |
Some people think it is out of hand now. Others think it will be soon if things continue as they have. What would you use, LoudDog, to determine when gas prices are so high that something needs to be done to change things?
Part of it is "our fault" because we have bought into the idea of driving big cars, SUVs and pickup trucks for our daily commute. We need to break out of that habit. We also need to realize that the cost of housing should reflect people's earnings within a contracting geographic area. |
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm a firm believer in the free market. Government setting prices and wages... That scares the $@*! out of me. i don't want them making all those decisions.
I got rid of my gas guzzlers and bought more fuel efficent vehicles. In the last year we cut our fuel consumption by 50% in my house. I saw gas prices going up and knew it was only going to get worse and I figured I'd do something rather then just complain. If the price goes up higher, more people will cut their usage, more money will be spent on seeking alternatives, Exxon will lose out when gas is no longer used. The free market has a great way of correcting itself when things get out of wack. Higher gas prices now will be looked at as one of the best things that could have happened to us in the history books (opinion).
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:18:43 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by "DrAchoo":
I'm curious what animals other than birds are killed by wind farms? Rabbits able to jump really high? |
Bats, insects...
Originally posted by "DrAchoo":
No energy is without its environmental impact, but it's silly to denigrate a clearly cleaner method by saying it still has impact. |
It is silly to point to an energy production method that has no means of meeting necessary capacity. In fact, in order to achieve necessary capacity the environmental impact of wind power would approach very high levels.
Already studies on wind farms have shown shocking climatic record shifts. The winds no longer cool the land and the areas of monitored wind farms had higher surface temperatures than the surrounding areas. Habitat change was also noticed.
Originally posted by "DrAchoo":
Conservation and working on our automobiles and our habits in driving them is going to be where the real potential lies. |
Habits have very little to do with it. Conservation has minimal impact in regards to oil. We "can't" conserve on a level to make a substantial difference. In order for conservation to have any real effect we'd have to be able to reduce to 10% of our current consumption levels. Not going to happen.
The only real solution is advancement of technology and removing our dependency on combustion based energy derivation.
Originally posted by "Ganders":
Even the bird issue is something of an urban legend; |
- A survey at Altamont Pass, California conducted by a California Energy Commission in 2004 showed that turbines killed 4,700 birds annually (1,300 of which are birds of prey). (Wikipedia: Wind Power)
- The numbers of bats killed by existing facilities has troubled even industry personnel.[22] A six-week study in 2004 estimated that over 2200 bats were killed by 63 turbines at two sites in the Eastern US. (Wikipedia: Wind Power)
- there are numerous questions regarding the effect of climate in regards to large scale wind farming necessary to meet energy demands.
A wind farm that produces the energy equivalent of a conventional power plant would have to cover an area of approximately 200 square kilometres.
Originally posted by "Azrifel":
Maybe people should stop complaining to the gas companies and start complaining to the car manufacturers because of the utterly crap gas consumption of their engines. |
Maybe people should quit complaining. I mean, they want airbags, they want DVD players, 5-speaker systems, they want this in their car and that in their car. All of these = extra weight. Which means more gas consumption. They want cars with more get up & go (a.k.a. higher torque levels) but they also want vehicles that cruise softly (more expensive and weighty suspension systems). So on and so on....
Meanwhile, GM's research budget gets reduced due to their financial pension burdens. They sell less cars because every car they make costs $1,500+ more than their competitors. Because they're competitors don't have to pay health care and pension costs. Then we go this whole free trade biz so that we don't charge the competition tariffs. So essentially U.S. car builders are forced to compete against subsidized foreign companies. That said, many foreign companies are now building plants in the U.S. as the dollar's value has declined.
Man...economics is a weird science. *lol*
Originally posted by "greatandsmall":
Just sold our gas Volvo, which got 24 MPG, and bought a diesel Passat, which gets 46MPG.
Even with the higher price of diesel, it costs us only $.06 per mile, compared to the $.12 per mile we paid with the gas car. Diesel is saving us 50% on our fuel costs. And when we have a place to set it up, we'll start making biodiesel for an even greater savings. |
Problem is that currently, most diesels do not meet emission standards. And there is a limited quantity that can be sold. This is due to the high sulfur content in diesel within the United States. That said, there is good news. A couple years back a slow phase in of "clean" diesel (akin to what much of europe uses) began. But it's going to take a few years for the major change over to be completed. Once done, expect to see a lot more 40-50mpg diesel vehicles become available in the U.S. But it's requiring an entire infrastructure change...
Of note, I read that 40% of oil stocks are owned by mutual funds, etc. in IRAs & 401Ks. So if true, just for consideration, that 40% of those profiting by all of this are those of us who have a retirement fund.
IMHO, the real problem isn't oil companies but "patent law"... Get rid of these for all energy development and let every car company, power company, etc. take the combined technology and instead of every company giving up a 5%-10% increase we might see a 50%+ increase in efficiency.
Originally posted by "louddog":
..and my theory, if someone could come up with an easy efficent way to separate hydrogen and oxygen when in the water state, they could make a engine run on water. It would burn the hydrogen with the only emission being oxygen! I've witnessed a drop of water produce the equvilent of a shotgun blast when split and ignighted. Imagine being able to pee in your gas tank and drive to work off it. |
Essentially, that's what "fuel cells" do. Just less explosive. You take oxygen and hydrogen, which wants to form water. You run the gas on the opposite side of a microscopic screen. The oxygen pulls the hydrogen thru and creating a current which powers the cell. Curren issues = efficiency & distribution + issue of seperating the water into hydrogen and oxygen. And interim solution is to use a hydrocarbon fuel like methanol (which could be distributed from current systems with minimal modifications). It's not as clean....but is much cleaner than current I.C.E. driven vehicles. And more feasible in the short term. This would allow fuel cell technology to advance and become more efficient for a later total transition to pure hydrogen.
Originally posted by "MQuinn":
So lets punish all American's because some own SUV's? |
If anyone thinks SUV's are the problem...then they do not understand the situation at hand, nor the depth and scope of the situation. When people complain about SUV's as the problem it automatically flags them as having no real grasp or understanding of the oil consumption issue. The difference between an SUV and a Honda Civic Hybrid is very minimal in the long term model.
Originally posted by "kosmikreeper":
Well, I found a small solution to put some $$ back in my pockets... I bought some oil and gas stocks!! :-)
|
There you go....no you're one of those evil oil bastards getting rich off the oil increase. Truth be told, most middle-class own a substantial amount of oil stock. It tends to be a strong holding in most mutual funds and retirement investment.
Originally posted by "TroyMosley":
the US should stop buying oil from everywhere, we should tap our own reserves and fend for ourselves, we have plenty to hold us off, vehicles that dont use gas isnt that far off, |
Indeed, we do have a large amount of oil. In fact, there are some who believe we have much more than we even state as our reserves because we've held off on "searching" for new reserves.
In part, due to environmentalists, who foolishly "block" necessity instead of forcing necessity to incorporate advancement. (ie: you don't "block" foresting, because we need wood to build. Instead, you require a 2-1 re-forestation plan. This increases a renewable resource. With regards to oil, the risks to the environment are minimal. And most of the risks are due to compromise and foolishness. (ie: Exxon Valdez). So you require stringent protections in exchange for opening the market.
(ie: allow for Alaska drilling but specify that ALL tankers be double or tripled hulled, and all tankers have redundant crew and more GPS navigation alert systems). For instance, we have routes mapped. There should be a GPS system attached to all tankers and a local land based navigation center. If the ship shows it is out of the normal routes the landbased navigation center makes contact and confirms path and re-direction. Double navigation security and you will greatly reduce chances of running aground. Also, put a per barrel park tax. Those areas which are drilled become "oil funded park reserves" both land and on water. In other words, a percentage of each barrel sold goes toward buying land and adding it as nature preserves. As well as buying areas of the ocean. Why have we never created areas in the ocean to be "off-limits" to fishing, these areas could be safe reserves and might even increase populations of fish. )
The second issue is "he who has the last laugh" philosophy. Most people when they think of oil think of cars. Then electricity and heating fuel. They forget oil = computers, cups, bowls, fishing poles, CDs, Canons & Nikons, compact flash cards, etc. Every single thing made out of plastic. So....even if we found an unlimited clean energy source we still need oil for manufacturing. And this is where America is hedging it's oil. I think most believe we will advanced past oil as energy. But NOT past oil as manufacturing. And so the idea is to keep most of our reserves untapped until global sources are mostly depleted. And the power conglomerate had no problem letting the environmentalists have their way so as to secure U.S. oil reserves. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 04:35:03 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "greatandsmall":
Just sold our gas Volvo, which got 24 MPG, and bought a diesel Passat, which gets 46MPG.
Even with the higher price of diesel, it costs us only $.06 per mile, compared to the $.12 per mile we paid with the gas car. Diesel is saving us 50% on our fuel costs. And when we have a place to set it up, we'll start making biodiesel for an even greater savings. |
Problem is that currently, most diesels do not meet emission standards. And there is a limited quantity that can be sold. This is due to the high sulfur content in diesel within the United States. That said, there is good news. A couple years back a slow phase in of "clean" diesel (akin to what much of europe uses) began. But it's going to take a few years for the major change over to be completed. Once done, expect to see a lot more 40-50mpg diesel vehicles become available in the U.S. But it's requiring an entire infrastructure change...
|
OK, I have to admit that I'm not an expert on diesel; but I know that some sort of emission standards are being met; otherwise trucks, buses and motorhomes would be in trouble. The fuel we put in both of our diesel vehicles meets the standards here in Florida, and the car passed NJ inspections. A lot of the black smoke that gives diesel a bad name is due to lack of proper vehicle maintenance.
Besides, biodiesel doesn't have harmful emissions; unless you're allergic to the odor of french fries.
I guess if diesel emissions are really such a danger, we should stop buying so much unneccesary junk so that there aren't so many big rigs on the roads.
Message edited by author 2006-05-01 17:03:29. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:03:39 PM · #233 |
"OK, I have to admit that I'm not an expert on diesel; but I know that some sort of emission standards are being met; otherwise trucks, buses and motorhomes would be in trouble."
U.S. emissions standards are based on class. Hence, an SUV/truck has less stringent requirements than a sub-compact, and an 18-wheeler/bus even less so.
Hence, 18-wheelers operating on diesel currently meet "their" requirements. But a 4 dr sedan does not. Also, the U.S. government works on a quota system. So, I might be able to sell 10 diesel Passats for every 1000 gasoline Passats that meet the more stringent requirements.
Thus, there is a limited quantity available of diesel vehicles. A few companies, have gotten the diesels to meet the standards for about 40 states. California and a handful of like strict emission states haven't been met. But it's been getting closer. Many expect Toyota and a few others to have diesels that meet California spec within a couple of years regardless of the low-sulfur diesel fuel rollout.
Trust me, emission standards is an extremely complex art courtesy of the U.S. government. I'll trade you three super-clean Prius for every 2 dirty Tundras I sell type of game.
"Besides, biodiesel doesn't have harmful emissions; unless you're allergic to the odor of french fries. "
Who told you that? biodiesel indeed has harmful emissions. ALL hydrocarbon fuels do. Anytime you combust impure materials you release harmful toxic emissions. Perhaps some less than others. Biodiesel's real benefit is in it's renewability; it may reduce pollution but all you need to do is stand in front of the exhaust pipe to realize it's more than just the scent of fries you're breathing.
"I guess if diesel emissions are really such a danger, we should stop buying so much unnessecary junk so that there aren't so many big rigs on the roads."
Hey, perhaps so...though in truth, big rigs are probably some of the first vehicles we could migrate to cleaner fuels and eventually off of I.C.E. motors. In fact, where I live, most of the gas stations selling biodiesel right now are the ones that cater to truckers.
I'm sorry if you have such disbelief. But I've researched quite a bit on this matter. I'm not just spouting to be opposing or onary. I am trying to give you the reasons WHY such things a diesel sedans haven't taken off in the U.S. On the flip side, I expect them to do so in 2-5 yrs...as long as the rollover to clean "low-sulfer" diesel takes place as planned.
- Saj |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:36:24 PM · #234 |
| That was hyperbolic of me. I should have said that biodiesel has "significantly fewer harmful emissions" than diesel. Thanks for correcting me Jason. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 05:59:08 PM · #235 |
| Gas prices...hit all time low in Saudi Arabia at 9 pence (ca 15 US cents) per liter - according to today's Times. Now you know where your money goes, LOL. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 06:40:58 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
That was hyperbolic of me. I should have said that biodiesel has "significantly fewer harmful emissions" than diesel. Thanks for correcting me Jason. |
Sorry...didn't mean any offense. I had a few friends who thought it was emissions free because it was bio. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 07:12:14 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
That was hyperbolic of me. I should have said that biodiesel has "significantly fewer harmful emissions" than diesel. Thanks for correcting me Jason. |
Sorry...didn't mean any offense. I had a few friends who thought it was emissions free because it was bio. |
No offense taken:) I should be more careful with what I say when trying to make a point. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 07:20:13 PM · #238 |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 07:24:56 PM · #239 |
$1,20 per LITER (that's about $6 per gallon if I'm correct).
I live in Poland. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 09:05:24 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm a firm believer in the free market. Government setting prices and wages... That scares the $@*! out of me. i don't want them making all those decisions.
I got rid of my gas guzzlers and bought more fuel efficent vehicles. In the last year we cut our fuel consumption by 50% in my house. I saw gas prices going up and knew it was only going to get worse and I figured I'd do something rather then just complain. If the price goes up higher, more people will cut their usage, more money will be spent on seeking alternatives, Exxon will lose out when gas is no longer used. The free market has a great way of correcting itself when things get out of wack. Higher gas prices now will be looked at as one of the best things that could have happened to us in the history books (opinion). |
It's all nice to say one is a believer in a free market system, but if you don't know enough about what that system implies to understand it's shortcomings and vulnarabilities then you are just parroting the ignorance fostered by the likes of talk show hosts. The price of gasoline is not self-correcting fast enough to spare a lot of Americans a lot of financial loss, displacement, and anguish. Wait a few years until credible data shows us how many small business are going to be failing because of increasing energy costs. Most of us were better off before the deregulation of the electricity market. Most of us are better off because the government sets the price of borrowing thru it's setting of the re-discount rate by the Federal Reserve. There are dozens of examples where consumers are better off when government influences prices. The Free Market System has a lot of theortic appeal but it rarely exists in real life the way it does in textbooks. Consumers in America have little opportunity to participate in any truely free markets for the goods & services they need to buy daily.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 10:47:39 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
It's all nice to say one is a believer in a free market system, but if you don't know enough about what that system implies to understand it's shortcomings and vulnarabilities then you are just parroting the ignorance fostered by the likes of talk show hosts. |
I'm not going to give you my resume, but I assure you I'm not ignorant in how the free market works. If this is how you discuss things, I'm done with you.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2006 01:03:27 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by coolhar:
It's all nice to say one is a believer in a free market system, but if you don't know enough about what that system implies to understand it's shortcomings and vulnarabilities then you are just parroting the ignorance fostered by the likes of talk show hosts. |
I'm not going to give you my resume, but I assure you I'm not ignorant in how the free market works. If this is how you discuss things, I'm done with you. |
All coolhar is saying is that pure supply and demand won't work in all cases. Unless you are a strict proponent of laissez-faire, I think you understand the need for some government intervention in economics.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2006 11:50:40 PM · #243 |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:40:34 PM · #244 |
sorry dont know if this has been posted but waterfuel is here
looks cool maybe someday...
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:01:56 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by digitalpins:
sorry dont know if this has been posted but waterfuel is here
looks cool maybe someday... |
hmm...interesting.
Technically, bottled water does cost more than gasoline though. But it's cleaner and reusable. |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 08:42:58 PM · #246 |
I just saw this picture..
|
|
|
|
10/15/2006 10:10:11 PM · #247 |
$1.99 reg unleaded
$2.35 Diesel
In San Antonio TX.
still slowly dropping |
|
|
|
10/15/2006 10:49:23 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by buzzrock:
I just saw this picture..
|
 buzzrock I just had to send that to about a half-dozen of my friends.
Good one! |
|
