Advocacy & Safety - Retail Gasoline Rises to Another Record, AAA Says

No,
World oil production has peaked, and it has nowhere to go but down. We have 20-50 years before oil prices go nuts, depending in which opil expert you believe. Since we are the most oil dependent country, we have a problem.

well.. at least for cargo ships it's a sensible cause. and don't diss the big ships... they are the most efficient. more volume in relation to surface area = less friction and better milage. they have a cargo ship that is 3000 feet long the last i heard... have they made a bigger on yet?

Agreed, they are the most "efficient" when it comes to hauling goods, but you gotta see the bigger picture too. The ship hauls the goods across an ocean burning diesel the whole way, then it gets to port where diesel trucks and cranes move the goods to diesel electric locomotives which then haul them across the country buring diesel the whole way, to be put onto more trucks that burn diesel using more cranes that burn diesel, to be moved into a store, to be picked up by you who(hopefully)is doing your shopping on a bicycle, to be cooked on a natural gas burning stove. We live in a very wasteful society, and on average, a normal mouthful of food traveled 2200 miles. Another statistic(is this why they make you take gen ed classes in college?)is that america contains 4% of the worlds population and uses 25%:eek:of the worlds resources. I think people will begin to rethink their views of nuclear once we run out of oil. A nuclear submarine can run for 50 years without refueling!

I think people will begin to rethink their views of nuclear once we run out of oil. A nuclear submarine can run for 50 years without refueling!

And the spent fuel will contaminate everything around for the next ten thousand years.

And the spent fuel will contaminate everything around for the next ten thousand years.

Unless it is properly disposed of...

Unless it is properly disposed of...

... by shooting it into space and contaminating someone elses world... :o

By burying it under ten foot thick lead-concrete walls that is buried deep underneath a mountain called Yucca. There will be nothing that escapes that.

>>>>By burying it under ten foot thick lead-concrete walls that is buried deep underneath a mountain called Yucca. There will be nothing that escapes that.<<<<<

Until an accident happens.

Folks. Do you know anyone who can make a promise that will last 10,000 years?

Hi,
storage of spent fuel is not a scientific problem. There are a number of deep sea beds that are geologically stable. We have had a design for a topedo shaped storage container for years and years that would bury itself in the sea floor. The waste would stay buried for a couple hundred thousand years. The technical issues have been handled. The political issues are a different matter.
I don't intend to argue that point; time will do it for me. Demand for oil will continue to rise, production is about to peak. We will have to get energy for sources other than oil and natural gas. As someone who lives downwind from all those coal plants in the midwest and the eastern seaboard; you can expect massive resistance from me to having even more (expletive deleted) mercury raining down on my head. Over the next 20 years things will begin to change. Once reality overcomes the resistance to change; it will be very rapid. And it will include nuclear. I hope it does not include a massive number of new coal plants (there are currently proposals for dozens of new coal plants) but takes a more sensible course mixing improved efficiency with a diversity of energy sources.

Consider that 98% of the nuclear waste that is to go into Yucca Mountain is reusable, should it be reporocessed.

There are a number of useful ways to use the highly purified plutonium that remains...

we'd run out of uranium trying to power the world on nuke. solar is the best option. we can put solar panels anywhere we want and they would only have to fill an area around the size of 2% of the u.s. .. that's not much space to take up considering all the places you can put them. the battery storage station wouldn't be all that big. and it wouold help prevent blackouts and such because there would always be a back up since they would all have to be taken out to completely lose power.

I have to travel for work using my own vehicle. So, these higher prices really hurt. My employer only pays the vehicle the going IRS milage rate. (or so they call it).

So, no matter what anyone thinks about how the higher prices are a good thing, remember, there are those of us that ARE hurt directly by these high prices.

Can I ask, What is the Current IRS Mileage rate?

we'd run out of uranium trying to power the world on nuke. solar is the best option. we can put solar panels anywhere we want and they would only have to fill an area around the size of 2% of the u.s. .. that's not much space to take up considering all the places you can put them. the battery storage station wouldn't be all that big. and it wouold help prevent blackouts and such because there would always be a back up since they would all have to be taken out to completely lose power.

No, nuclear will not last forever. It will, however, provide enough of a delay to come up with fusion or other alternatives.

As for solar, the one case where it makes economic sense are large fields of low-grade solar panels on the Moon, beamed back via microwave to the Earth.

i don't think we'd be worrying too much about economic sense when we run out o oil. but they would be cheaper at the production level we would need anyway.

Consider that 98% of the nuclear waste that is to go into Yucca Mountain is reusable, should it be reporocessed.

There are a number of useful ways to use the highly purified plutonium that remains...

I can think of one way to reuse depleated plutonium, but then again, I'm not trying to take over the world :D

One good thing about skyrocketing oil prices as a consequence of dwindling production is that alternative energy sources WILL become economically viable.

Every source of energy is compared to currently cheap oil, and as a consequence of this, no alternative can get off the ground as long as oil remains cheap and widely available.

Things will change.

Can I ask, What is the Current IRS Mileage rate?

For business, in 2004, it is 37.5 cents/mile (36 for 2003).

I located it here (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p553/ch02.html#d0e2149) on the IRS website.

Some of the problems with the increasing cost of gasoline lies with us the consumer! The buyers of SUV's which represent the majority of car owners in the USA, unconsiously sent a message to the big oil companies saying: "hey, I don't give a rip about the gas mileage, that's why I bought this SUV"! You don't think the oil companies were taking notes? Their not stupid...WE ARE! So the oil companies said heck if the Americans can afford to get 8 to 18 mpg and not be very interested in the 30 to 45 mpg cars, or in mass transportation or alternative transportation then the Americans can afford to pay more at the pump. Very simple basic economics. But that's just my crazy viewpoint on all of this.

There is also fuel cell technology and wind power. These sources along with solar should elimintate the need for oil for transportation. Some oil will still be needed for manufactureing. But we will all wait till its to late.

There is also fuel cell technology and wind power. These sources along with solar should elimintate the need for oil for transportation. Some oil will still be needed for manufactureing. But we will all wait till its to late.


An analysis and vision of what is to come....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3623549.stm

Fuel cells require the production of hydrogen and are just ways to store energy, like batteries.

As for wind power, it can only peak at 10-15% of total energy output. Any more, and you put yourself in great peril. North Dakota, South Dakota, and southern Minnesota all would be ideal candidates for wind power due to plenty of wind in those areas. The rest of the country would be better served by other power sources...

Fuel cells require the production of hydrogen and are just ways to store energy, like batteries.

Is that something that can be produced by a given super-power country without being imported at inflated rates from countries that dislike us? What is the availability and environmental impact of hydrogen? Does it carry international political ramifications, such as come along with oil? The cost of oil is significantly higher than price-per-barrel. From what I've heard, I don't see what the hold-up is.

Hydrogen can be produced domestically, but the most prevalent and economically sound method, at the moment, is to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels. Electrolisis is several times more expensive, and would require nuclear power to produce without being dependent on outside sources of energy.

Hydrogen is much more expensive than oil, on an energy per dollar basis.

Hydrogen is very undense, even in liquid form, so transportation is difficult from that standpoint because it requires very large fuel tanks.

The temperature of liquid hydrogen at -250C makes transportation very problematic. Not only is the insulation on tanks considerable, but problems of boiloff and dangers of leakage have to be addressed.

Frankly, fuel cells can contribute a bit, perhaps to work as a battery solution for wind plants, but in no way can they replace oil and coal...hell, you need a power source just to run them anyway...

why does the middle east have so much oil? did the dinosaurs all run there to die?

why does the middle east have so much oil? did the dinosaurs all run there to die?

Actually there are some larger oil fields in Canada and in Russia but they are locked in extreme frozen conditions...BUT you and I know we can get that oil if we really want to, so the question is why don't we? I think the USA is saving those huge reserves for when middle east either runs out or they blow the hell out of that region! But in reference to your question, how did dinosaurs end up in extremely cold climate areas? Simple, at one time the earth's system was different then today, the earth was tilted differently on it's axis which allowed the Polar and Antartica areas to be much warmer and these critters lived there. Also don't forget that at one time most if not all the continents was all one big continent. Now the critters could roam from the continent of Antartica all the way to Russia and through to the Americas. Take a real close look at a globe and you can see that the pieces do fit.

What I find ironic is both Bush and Kerry are saying they will lower gas prices. Never mind the fact that oil production more likely than not has peaked and now will be in a downward spiral for the next 40-50 years.(Big clues; Shell has had to adjust their statements on reserves twice. The Saudis acknowledge they have peaked.). Oh sure gas prices might come down a little this fall but it's time to come out of denial. Instead of sending men to mars we should be using our money to develope alternative fuel and energy sources.
Yeah I realize it's a refining capacity issue and not supply at this time. My point is it's not going to get better in the long run.

Couldn't have said it any better.......

Spot-on, William! Two factors fueled the famous American bike boom of the early 1970s: 1) Surgeon General Paul Dudley White; and 2) the 1973 gasoline "crisis," during which I was blissfully car-free. Our society suffers from gluttony at the dinner table and gluttony at the gasoline pump. Human-powered transportation is an admittedly small, but nonetheless vital, part of the solution. I also fervently hope that car buyers will start noticing the EPA gas mileage rating stickers again. Having bought new cars in 2001 and 2003, I am glad I stuck by my environmental and economic principles and selected the smallest engine available (1.8L, 2.4L) for each.

I agree! I just purchased a VW Golf and couldn't be happier with the gas mileage. My co-workers (two of which drive SUV's and my boss drives a Hummer) laughed at the car the first day I drove it to work. All I said is let's see who's laughing in a couple of months. They haven't said anything since........

What disgusts me is when I'm driving to work and a huge SUV passes me and there's only one person in it. What a waste! Having the money for one of these vehicles and having the money to purchase the gas isn't a valid excuse!

Actually there are some larger oil fields in Canada and in Russia but they are locked in extreme frozen conditions...BUT you and I know we can get that oil if we really want to, so the question is why don't we? I think the USA is saving those huge reserves for when middle east either runs out or they blow the hell out of that region! .

The US can't get these oil fields because we don't own Canada or Russia! The only way we can get these oil fields is to invade. On second thought, we just might do that!

A $1.66 per gallon is CHEAP to the people of San Diego. It has been 4-5 years since
I have seen $1.66. These days its around $2.29-$3.05 per gallon. Gotta love the weather tax!

I'm from the midwest and just returned from a business trip in San Diego. I was absolutely shocked when I saw the gas prices out there! Ouch!

The weather is beautiful, though........ :)

Some of the problems with the increasing cost of gasoline lies with us the consumer! The buyers of SUV's which represent the majority of car owners in the USA, unconsiously sent a message to the big oil companies saying: "hey, I don't give a rip about the gas mileage, that's why I bought this SUV"! You don't think the oil companies were taking notes? Their not stupid...WE ARE! So the oil companies said heck if the Americans can afford to get 8 to 18 mpg and not be very interested in the 30 to 45 mpg cars, or in mass transportation or alternative transportation then the Americans can afford to pay more at the pump. Very simple basic economics. But that's just my crazy viewpoint on all of this.

Good one. I read an article the other day on MSN.com where the author stated several ways to cut your gas expenses by charging it on your credit cards or buying a second car that gets good mileage. This is insane.

As someone said before, the price of milk cost more than gas so if the motorist is not concerned, the Arabs are not concerend, the auto manufacturers are not concerned and our elected officials are not concerend. Why should I be concerned?

As I said in a similar thread, we pay about $5.40 per US gallon (@$1.80/£).

America, we fe-e-e-e-l your pain!

You know what's sad, atbman? It's going to take $5.40 per gallon before people here in the states wake up and realize this is a real problem. What's really sad is the fact that SUV's are still outselling every other vehicle here. Disgusting............ :(

I was in London last year visiting an old college buddy and was shocked (happy) to see how many bike riders (commuters) you have. Very nice to see...... :)

The big boys aren't laughing so hard now when they see me driving my '93 Geo Metro, 3 cylinder-standard shift-5 speed, 35+ MPG piece of crap.

Matter-of-fact...they hate me. :p

Yeah, but it's a good kind of hate....... :)

I'm from the midwest and just returned from a business trip to San Diego. I was absolutely shocked when I saw the gas prices out there! Ouch!

The weather is beautiful, though........ :)

I stood by the gas station the other day and noticed the price exceeding $2.29 for premium. A tear shead down my eye as I felt so sorry for the poor motorist who must spend their hard earned dollars. OH the pain and suffering they must go through each day!

Then I woke up and found out this was nothing more than a bad dream! ;-)

Actually there are some larger oil fields in Canada and in Russia but they are locked in extreme frozen conditions...BUT you and I know we can get that oil if we really want to, so the question is why don't we?

Cost. The cost to develop and operate oil fields in extreme conditions is probably not profitable at current oil prices. Someday, when the price of oil gets high enough, it will become economically viable to set up production.

The US can't get these oil fields because we don't own Canada or Russia! The only way we can get these oil fields is to invade. On second thought, we just might do that! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/

LittleBigMan
suppose you say we have a number of barrels left..call that number x, and that number will give us 50 years.
Now, double the amount of oil, and it will buy you 7 extra years.
Double it again and you get an additional 4 years. No, we don't have a bottomless well. But even if we had a well that was almost bottomless; it would not make much of a difference.

The US can't get these oil fields because we don't own Canada or Russia! The only way we can get these oil fields is to invade. On second thought, we just might do that!

Actually we can do it without invading, and both Canada and Russia would prosper. And the frozen tundra didn't stop us in Alaska! I say we get Canada and Russia turned on and turn off those other guys. Oops a thought just occurred; would we by giving Russia more money be in turn enabling them to build a better military to attack us with? Maybe not Russia then. We'll just give our trade over to harmless little China who just 8 years ago only had about 6 nuclear missiles aimed at us...but now they have over 100 aimed at us and growing...hmmm...what to do-what to do? Maybe Generals McArthur and Patton was right after all.

A couple of good comics on the topic:

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040413/billday.gif

http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/04/28/

.

As someone said before, the price of milk cost more than gas so if the motorist is not concerned, the Arabs are not concerend..,

EEK!! beware of Arab cows!

roughstuff

A couple of good comics on the topic:

http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/04/28/

i love the calvin & hobbes one! if gas goes up to $8 per gallon.. everyone will be riding to work! what an awesome site that would be. then perhaps most people will become more healthier and slimmer and no longer a couch potato!

There was a good article in USA Today. I’m going to summarize part of that piece:

Development Plans raise fears of more traffic and pollution as metro rethinks growth direction
by John Ritter
USA Today

Los Angeles - Plans for two of the biggest housing developments ever built here in the subdivision paradise make James Chang wince. The Changs camped outside a homebuilder’s trailer for five days and nights to land sight unseen - a new $500,000 four bedroom house. Never mind Chang’s hour and 15 minute commute to west Los Angels. The same house close to his job would go for at least $1 million.

But now Chang dreads an even longer commute if the two big developments add 140,000 people to the thinly populated northern edge of sprawling Los Angeles County. “the traffic is just going to e horrendous,” worries the law enforcement officer 37. Arid high desert north of the San Gabriel Mountains is the county’s last big chunk of developable open land after decades of relentless growth beyond the coastal core. In rush hour, the commute downtown is a minimum 90minutes.

The two proposals - one approved, one facing environmental studies have stoked a debate of the future of the nation’s second most populous metropolitan area. A culture revolving around the auto and the single family detached house with mass transit a Johnny-come lately, is forced to rethink whether that ethic can prevail much longer

The five-county Los Angeles metro area will add more than 5.3 million people by 2030, the Census Bureau estimates. Los Angeles County alone will add 2.4 million. Where will they all live? Will subdivision keep spreading into the desert? Could Southern California become one long urban traffic jam stretching more than 200 miles from San Diego to Bakersfield?

I’m going to stop right there because this is the problem. All these folks in LA and most of the country want to live in a single family homes that are detached with a built in garage so they can drive to work. These cities have no “Smart Growth” initiatives or plans for revitalizing downtown centers that have been abandoned for decades.

Basically, this outdated system of growth depends on cheap fuel to keep the engine running. Now you know the reason why California has huge energy problems because they won’t give up this policy of uncontrolled growth and urban sprawl.

I wonder if Mr. Chang will be living in their dream home once those two massive developments are finished. The additional 140,000 thousand cars on the same expressway he uses to drive to work should make the morning commute lovely!

Not only will we have gas problems, but the single family homes are wasteful in themselves. One of the guys I work with has a condo with just the front exposed to the weather, and his heating bill is about one quarter what a single family home would be.

LA is so screwed. They didn't do urban planing. And now it's too late. The physcial layout of the area is one of the most inefficient in the world. But that's not the real problem. The inefficiency does not rise linearly with population growth; it rises much faster. It's a mess.

$1.95b here now :)