Forum IndexRegisterGamesSearchFAQBankMemberlistUsergroupsLog in
$omebodee gotta die 2nite. The$e Ga$ price$ fuk that
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28
 
Reply to topic    Afrocentric Online Forum Index » Da Corner View previous topic
View next topic

$omebodee gotta die 2nite. The$e Ga$ price$ fuk that
Author Message
ingenue



Joined04 Apr 2005
Posts41761
Bank4294967295
Bones68364.93 Bones

Post Reply with quote
[quote="matthew"][quote="ingenue"][quote="matthew"][color=darkblue][size=24]Roll Call![/size]
[/color]
What is the price of regular unleaded in your neighborhood today (Friday the 13th)?

[b]$4.09[/b] at the station across the street from my office.[/quote]

4.57 for regular unleaded at our regular filling station (Costco).[/quote]
[b]
WOW. $4.57 at Costco?[/b] It's $4.15 at the same station across the street from my office. I've noticed the prices vacillating a little bit in the last week, but no incredible spike. Just wait, though. The July 4th weekend is coming soon. Let's see what the spike is next week.[/quote]

Exactly!

I went to get gas on Friday and I was like WTH? omG! Mad

In Cosco's defense... Arco is 4.59. Rolling Eyes
Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:46 pm View user's profile Find all posts by ingenue Send private message
BobbyDigital



Joined03 Aug 2002
Posts7583
LocationBlack Hollywood
Bank0
Bones21765.78 Bones

Post Reply with quote
[b]I was in Orlando last week. Gas there was in the $3.70-something/gallon range for unleaded.

Here in the ATL... I filled up at $3.89/gallon this morning. Down from the $3.98 it was when we left for Orlando.[/b]
Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:49 pm View user's profile Find all posts by BobbyDigital Send private message Yahoo Messenger
shadow777



Joined15 Jul 2007
Posts4122
LocationThe Dark Shadows
Bank0
Bones25393.12 Bones

Post Reply with quote
Drivers blame D.C. for high gas prices

More than three-quarters of consumers say the government's energy policies are to blame for record fuel costs, according to Consumer Reports.

June 26, 2008: 6:23 PM EDT

Gas prices drive hybrid demandvideo
Gas prices drive hybrid demand


Which is the worst aspect of our dependence on oil?

*
Environmental damage
*
Lack of financial independence
*
National security

or View results

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Fed up with record gas prices, drivers often scapegoat big oil companies for high prices at the pump, but in a recent survey, more Americans directed their scorn towards Washington lawmakers.

According to a Consumer Reports Auto Pulse Survey released Thursday, 77% of consumers said the root of high gas prices lies with the government's failure to implement an effective energy policy. That compares with 75% of drivers who blamed oil companies, 70% who said foreign oil producers were at fault and 68% who thought the Middle East conflict was a leading cause for record fuel costs.

Gas prices now sit at a little less than $4.07 per gallon on average according to AAA, which is about a penny off the record set earlier this month. But if gas prices reach $4.32, the median breaking-point for all drivers surveyed, the nearly 900 respondents said they would reduce their driving habits even further.

"This marks a much narrower margin between national average prices and the median tipping point than in last year's survey," the study noted. "[That] signal[s] that consumers now have less flexibility in their budgets."

Even with the current cost of fuel, almost 31% of the respondents said they walked or bicycled more, and 16% took better advantage of public transportation. One in ten said they moved so they could live closer to their work.

That's because Americans are feeling the impact of record gas prices in their pocketbooks. Nearly half of those surveyed said they are saving less, and 24% said they cut back on essentials like food and health care costs.

As a result, 90% of those surveyed support an increase in alternative energy development, and 81% want the U.S. government to allow more drilling on and off our nation's shores. Americans also favored conservation measures, with 83% saying they supported tax incentives for alternate transportation.

And for those who haven't adjusted their behaviors, the kinds of cars people drive are changing as well. In last year's survey, only 47% said they were interested in alternative engine types like hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, or diesel engines. But this year, 80% said they would consider buying a car with an alternate-style engine, and 54% said they would pay extra for a more fuel-efficient vehicle.

If it wasn't clear how pinched American drivers are feeling from the rest of the survey's data, 15% of respondents even said they would even compromise on their vehicle's safety to save on gas. To top of page
$4 gas solution: More miles per gallon

Economists should listen to consumers

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/26/news/economy/consumers_gas_prices/index.htm?cnn=yes
Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:18 am View user's profile Find all posts by shadow777 Send private message Send e-mail
shadow777



Joined15 Jul 2007
Posts4122
LocationThe Dark Shadows
Bank0
Bones25393.12 Bones

Post Reply with quote
Giant Saudi Field is Key to Boosting Oil Output

Sunday, June 29, 2008



KHURAIS OIL FIELD, Saudi Arabia This massive oil field surrounded by the desolate sands of Saudi Arabia's vast eastern desert feels like the middle of nowhere.

But what happens over the next year at Khurais, one of Saudi Arabia's last undeveloped giant oil fields, could hold the key to what drivers will pay at the pump for years to come.

Under way at Khurais and two other smaller fields nearby is what Saudi Arabia calls the single largest expansion of oil production capacity in history.

With consumers howling over record fuel prices and the United States pushing Saudi Arabia to produce more oil, this patch of sand 100 miles west of the Saudi capital of Riyadh has become one of the most important places in the world economy.

Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company, Aramco, is spending $10 billion to build the infrastructure to pump 1.2 million barrels of oil per day by next June from the Khurais field and its two smaller neighbors. That alone would be more than the total individual production of OPEC members Qatar, Indonesia and Ecuador.

The project forms the centerpiece of the Saudi plan to increase the total amount of oil it can produce to 12.5 million barrels per day by the end of 2009 -- up from a little more than 11 million barrels per day now.

Consuming nations have pushed Saudi Arabia to boost production capacity even further and also want the world's top oil exporter to begin pumping more crude immediately to bring down record oil prices hovering near $140 a barrel. They say oil production has not kept up with increased demand, especially from China, India and the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia plans to produce 9.7 million barrels of oil per day, or 11 percent of the world's total, in July. It is the only nation with significant excess capacity that it could put on the market quickly.

But the kingdom has resisted calls to increase production further, saying financial speculators and the falling dollar are to blame for high oil prices, not a shortage of supply.

These disagreements came to a head June 22 at a rare meeting of oil producing and consuming nations hosted by Saudi Arabia. In the end, Saudi Arabia said it could increase oil production capacity to 15 million barrels per day if needed in future years. But it gave no indication that step, or an immediate increase in output, was necessary or planned.

The political tussle over output masks the challenge Saudi Arabia faces in boosting production capacity by developing giant fields like Khurais.

"That is what people don't appreciate," said Manouchehr Takin, an oil expert at the London-based Centre for Global Energy Studies. "These are major projects, and people don't realize they aren't that easy."

The Saudis estimate Khurais and the nearby smaller Abu Jifan and Mazalij fields hold a total of 27 billion barrels of oil encased in solid rock 5,000 feet below the baking desert.

Saudi Arabia is no stranger to developing giant oil fields. Its massive Ghawar field, with an estimated 70 billion barrels of remaining reserves, is the world's largest.

But oil experts say Khurais, which was discovered in 1957, is geologically more difficult to tap.

Aramco is using hundreds of mostly South Asian workers to build a massive processing facility at the field. More than 150 wells will pump crude to the surface, where water and gas will be separated out. The oil then will be funneled to the country's east-west pipeline for delivery to ships in the Red Sea.

Workers are also building a huge sea-water injection system to pump more than 2 million barrels of water per day from the Gulf into 120 wells. That will maintain the necessary pressure underground to push the oil to the surface.

Disputes over Saudi's decisions aside, "when you talk about the fields and the engineers and so on, I think you have to respect their technical ability," Takin said.

With its twisting maze of metal, the half-finished facility rises out of the desert like a massive space station. Workers wear gloves and wrap bandanas across their faces to hide from the searing sun as they work 10-hour shifts in temperatures well above 100 degrees.

Aramco officials say that in addition to geological challenges, they also face difficulty finding enough qualified workers and equipment. The project will use 145,000 tons of steel -- almost enough to build two Golden Gate bridges.

"We are trying to do it in a world market where contractors are in high demand," said Muhammed al-Rubeh, head of Aramco's project department.

When completed, the processing facility also will be protected by two layers of fences, crash barriers, security cameras and government forces, Aramco says. Al-Qaida has called for attacks against Saudi Arabia's oil facilities to disrupt the flow of crude.

Aramco officials insist that despite the tight construction market, the Khurais project will be ready to produce 1.2 million barrels per day by next June.

But equipment and labor shortages have delayed production at another field, Khursaniyah, which was originally scheduled to begin pumping 500,000 barrels per day at the end of 2007. Aramco officials now say Khursaniyah will come online in August.

Also in the works is the development of the Manifa field, which sits offshore in the Gulf and is Saudi Arabia's only other giant oil field still untapped.

If all goes as scheduled, Aramco forecasts more than 50 billion barrels of fresh reserves from the giant fields by 2011. That amount alone would give Saudi Arabia the ninth largest oil reserves in the world, not even counting its existing reserves.

Outside analysts estimate the kingdom's total current reserves at about 260 billion barrels. But Saudi Arabia refuses to provide detailed data to allow independent verification.

Amin Nasser, senior vice president for production and exploration at Aramco, acknowledges the company sometimes faces criticism for that secrecy. "We have a tradition of letting our actions and accomplishments speak for themselves," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373452,00.html
Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:58 pm View user's profile Find all posts by shadow777 Send private message Send e-mail
MHC



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts22860
LocationSomewhere quietly gaining power...
Bank4294967295
Bones999999999.99 Bones

Post Reply with quote
[url]http://www.ajc.com/news/content/opinion/stories/2008/06/22/oiloped.html?cxntlid=inform_artr[/url]
[size=18]
[b]DRILLING DOWN ON OIL[/b][/size]

By Jay Bookman
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/22/08

Is the current oil crisis a natural phenomenon, the inevitable result of too much demand meeting too little supply? Or is it the consequence of market speculation or of bad government policies? To get at the answers, we decided to drill deep into government data and other sources to see what the numbers told us.

- Jay Bookman, for the editorial board (jbookman@ajc.com)

[size=18]1. THE PROBLEM[/size]

Just in case you haven't noticed, the price of gasoline has risen by almost a dollar a gallon in the past year and by more than $2 a gallon in the past five years, even after accounting for inflation.

Part of the explanation for the rise in oil prices has been the fall of the dollar compared with the euro and other currencies. And with summer just beginning, gasoline is now more expensive than it has ever been in this country.

GASOLINE PRICES

June 2003 - June 2008

(All prices adjusted for inflation, expressed in 2008 dollars)

Bar chart compares price increases, specifically:

'03: $1.75

'08: $3.90

-

U.S. DOLLAR TO EURO

June 2003 - June 2008

(Monthly prices)

Chart tracks the value specifically:

June '03: .86 and .91

June '08: .64

"It depends on what will happen when you have a very unstable situation in the Gulf and the expectation that there will be an attack on Iran and Iran would respond, and if they do respond it's $200 or $300 per barrel could be the results of that - but it's a big if.''

Sheik Ahmed Yamani

former longtime Saudi oil minister
[b]
"Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, [OPEC] could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."

U.S. Energy Information Administration

"Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge"[/b] [color=darkred]Hey shadow...you listening???
[/color]

[size=18]
2. THE CAUSE[/size]
[b]
Why is it so expensive? Because demand for oil is rising quickly while the supply of oil is rising slowly. When demand outpaces supply for an extended period of time, the price rises. (Federal officials are also investigating claims that speculation has driven prices artificially high, but so far no direct evidence has surfaced).[/b] [color=darkred]Personally, I think this is BS. Money is pouring out of the equities market (stock market) and into commodities. There is NO WAY that the price of oil is only marginally affected by this shift in investment activity. Supply and demand IS at work...the supply of oil futures vs. the DEMAND for[b] commodity based investments.[/b][/color]

China and its booming economy account for a lot of that growth in demand. China's oil consumption tripled between 1990 and 2006. However, the United States has also made a considerable contribution to demand growth. Between 1990 and 2006, China's oil consumption rose by 4.9 million barrels a day; in the United States, consumption rose by 3.7 million barrels.

By 2030, the federal government predicts, the United States will still be consuming 11 million barrels a day more than China, which has four times our population.

OIL CONSUMPTION

in U.S. and China

1990 - 2006

Bar chart compares barrels of oil consumed per day in '90, '96, '00, '05 and '06 specifically:

'90:

U.S.: 16.98 million (Barrels per day)

China: 2.29 million

-

'06:

U.S.: 20.68 million

China: 7.20 million
[size=18]
3. SUPPLY AND DEMAND[/size]

TOP TEN OIL PRODUCERS

2006

a bar chart comparison:

(Barrels per day)

Saudi Arabia: 10.66 million

Russia: 9.67 million

United States: 8.33 million

Iran: 4.14 million

China: 3.84 million

Mexico: 3.70 million

Canada: 3.28 million

United Arab Emirates: 2.94 million

Venezuela: 2.80 million

Norway: 2.78 million



The United States is the third-largest oil producer in the world, trailing only Saudi Arabia and Russia. We produce more than twice as much oil every day as Iran, the fourth-largest producer. Yet the 8.3 million barrels of oil we produce every day don't come close to meeting our demand of 21 million barrels a day.

And as our petroleum use has increased, our proven oil reserves - the amount of oil that we know is waiting in the ground to be pumped - have fallen dramatically since the peak in 1970, right after discovery of large oil reserves in Alaska.

U.S. CRUDE OIL PROVEN RESERVES

(In barrels)

Chart tracks from 1960 to 2006:

'60: 31.61 billion

'70: 39 billion (peak)

'06: 20.97 billion

-

[size=18]4. WE DEMAND, THEY SUPPLY[/size]

TOP 10 COUNTRIES EXPORTING OIL TO THE U.S.

March 2008

(Barrels per day)

a bar chart comparison:

Canada: 1.79 million

Saudi Arabia: 1.53 million

Mexico: 1.23 million

Nigeria: 1.15 million

Venezuela: .85 million

Iraq: .77 million

Angola: .38 million

Algeria: .24 million

Equador: .23 million

Kuwait: .19 million


To meet its enormous energy needs, the United States imports oil from all over the world, most notably from North America, South America, Africa and the Middle East. And with oil selling at around $140 a barrel, that means we ship almost $2 billion to other countries every day to pay for imported oil.

PER CAPITA OIL CONSUMPTION

2004 (*2006)

(Barrels per day per 1,000 people)

a bar chart comparison:

Canada: 71.7

United States: 70.5

Netherlands: 58.1

South Korea: 44.6

Japan: 43.6*

France: 32.3*

Germany: 32.1

United Kingdom: 30.5

Russia: 17.4*

China: 5.0*
[b]
"At a time when the growth of consumption is lower than the growth of production and the market is full of oil, prices are rising and this trend is completely fake and imposed.... It is very clear that visible and invisible hands are controlling prices in a fake way with political and economic aims."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[/b] [color=darkred]No wonder Bush and Cheney hate this guy more than the mullahs who really control Iran. He sometimes speaks truths they hate to acknowledge.[/color]

[size=18]
5. FALSE SOLUTION A[/size]

[b]The rising price of gasoline is blamed by some on the fact that no new refinery has been built in this country since the 1970s. As the story goes, environmental regulations have made it impossible to build needed new facilities.

However, both claims are exaggerations. While no new refineries have been built, that is the result of market-based decisions by private investors, not government agencies. Until very recently, we actually had a glut of refining capacity in this country, which made it difficult for refiners to make money. Excess gasoline refining capacity in Europe - created as European drivers moved from gasoline to diesel to power their vehicles - also undercut American refineries' profits. And even without new refineries coming on line, companies have managed to expand domestic refining capacity by expanding existing facilities.

"Excess refining capacity historically caused profitability of the refining sector to be low compared to many other industries," the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report last year. In the first quarter of 2008, for example, Chevron made an overall profit of $5.17 billion, but its profit from refining amounted to just $4 million.[/b] [color=darkred]Okay...this is a fresh one on me. Very interesting.[/color]

"OPEC needs to open the production lines to a greater extent, increase global oil supply. ... The G8 provides an opportunity to apply the blowtorch to the OPEC organization - and it's time that happened."

Kevin Rudd

Prime minister of Australia
[size=18]
6. FALSE SOLUTION B[/size][b]

Would opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other coastal areas to oil drilling have any effect on gasoline prices, as many politicians claim? No, it would not.

Let's take ANWR as an example. Many Americans would be surprised to learn that oil produced in ANWR would be sold to Americans at whatever the global price for oil happened to be. There's no "hometown discount" - U.S. consumers would pay 100 percent of the global price for ANWR oil, just as we do now for oil produced from Alaska, Texas or the Gulf of Mexico.

That's because all oil produced in this country goes into the world oil market. All oil sold in this country is bought off the world oil market. So there's only one way that opening ANWR and other areas could lower the price of gasoline here in the United States: It would have to put enough "new oil" on the global market to drive down the price of oil worldwide.

A newly released study by the federal Energy Information Administration says that would not happen. According to the EIA, if drilling began in ANWR this year, oil production from that region would peak around 2027-2030. At peak production, ANWR would produce enough oil to lower the world price of oil by about 1 percent. If gasoline is selling at $5 a gallon in 2030, that would amount to 5 cents a gallon.

That EIA prediction has actually been confirmed recently in the oil markets. Saudi Arabia has announced it would increase production by 500,000 barrels a day. But analysts call that a modest boost when you consider total world consumption of about 85 million barrels a day; not surprisingly, it has had no discernible impact on world oil prices.

Furthermore, the EIA predicts that as ANWR oil came on the world market, OPEC would simply reduce its production, thus keeping the global oil supply - and the global price - unchanged. So in the end, drilling in the wildlife refuge and offshore areas would have little or no impact on oil prices.[/b]
[color=darkred]
Once again, shadow...are you listening? No comment needed.[/color]
[size=18]
7. THE HARD TRUTH[/size]

So what's the solution? There isn't one. The higher gasoline prices we see today are probably permanent and may go higher still. Some energy analysts even believe that world oil production is now peaking and will begin to decline just as global demand has begun to soar. If so, today's historically high petroleum prices will seem like a bargain by 2018.

Major automakers understand that a fundamental change is under way - they're closing plants that make SUVs and pickup trucks and focusing instead on high-mileage cars. And there is strong if early evidence that Americans are making changes in their daily lives that would have seemed impossible just a few years ago.

In response to $4 gasoline, for example, we have begun driving fewer miles and turning more often to mass transit. For the first time in history, the number of miles driven on U.S. highways has begun to decline.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drove 11 billion miles fewer in March than they did in March 2007, a decrease of 4.3 percent. (In Georgia, the decline was even sharper, with travel falling 5.8 percent.) At 25 miles per gallon, that means gasoline consumption nationwide dropped 440 million gallons in March.

And in the first three months of 2008, transit ridership increased 3.3 percent, according to the American Public Transportation Association.

U.S. TRANSIT RIDERSHIP

First quarters of 2007 and 2008

a bar chart comparison:

2007: 2,540,687

2008: 2,625,404

-

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

First quarters of 2007 and 2008

a bar chart comparison of January, February and March specifically:

March

2007: 257.3 billion

2008: 246.3 billion

[size=18]8. FUTURE SHOCK[/size]

There are no "outs" - building more refineries or opening new areas to oil drilling cannot alter the global nature of the changes now under way. Overall, an economy and lifestyle built on cheap oil will be forced to undergo wrenching changes in a fairly short period of time.

The impact will not be uniform. For example, high gasoline prices are having a disproportionate impact on rural areas, where distances are longer, incomes lower and public transit isn't an option. (Already, travel on rural roads in Georgia has fallen significantly faster than in urban and suburban areas.)

In suburban areas, sprawling development patterns will become the real estate version of the Hummer, both relics of an age of cheap energy. The same is true of transportation solutions built around such ideas as double-decking highways.

Rail will become a more economically viable means of moving goods as well as people, the airline industry will contract, and given the importance of oil as an agricultural "input" - it is used for everything from fertilizer and pesticides to running tractors - food prices are likely to stay high as well.

Overall, the fundamental forces of supply and demand now in play are simply too powerful to be denied. Until alternative energy sources are developed and scaled up, adaptation, not denial, will be the only rational course.

U.S. & WORLD REFINING CAPACITY

1970 - 2008

a bar chart comparison - specifically:

'70:

World: 47.04 million

U.S.: 12.02 million

'80:

World: 79.87 million

U.S.: 17.98 million

'08:

World: 85.29 million

U.S.: 17.43 million

Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Reuters
Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:03 am View user's profile Find all posts by MHC Send private message
bodom



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts10653
LocationINDIANAPOLIS
Bank4294967295
Bones999999999.99 Bones
Game Trophies:  4
Hall Of Fame Member

Post Reply with quote
Here's what I believe. Oil is the new housing. You can cite supply and demand, but that doesn't explain the spike in pricing.

In the early 2000s, prices for housing (especially in the West Coast) started to skyrocket. Like oil, real estate is also a limited supply item. It was [b]speculation[/b] that ran up the prices. Sure demand for housing went up, but not at twice the rate for prices to double. Demand went up artificially as many people bought before they were ready to buy, because the prices ran up so quickly and so fast to the point where "if you don't buy now, you'll never get it".

Similar to pumping oil, developers kept pumping out housing to meet the demand. As the cost of housing went way up, profits for developers went up (just like oil companies). However, developers did NOT set the prices. This is why I actually believe big oil when it comes to the oil futures market. People jumped feet first into the housing market. They saw it as investment opportunity. The prices would run up daily and you had a glut of "flippers" out there in search of "easy money". The demand was artificial as many houses were being bought by those who already owned homes and used it as a means for investment. You saw many TV shows promoting how to flip houses and make fast cash. Then... the bottom fell out.

That's exactly what's going on with oil. Much like everyone needs a place to stay, everyone needs to get from point A to point B. And you have many investors going all in with the oil futures market as a way for "safe" investment and to make easy money. The speculators are driving up the prices. And the REAL demand is for those INVESTING in oil. As more people want to buy an item, as there are fewer sellers, the stock prices goes up. That's the explanation for oil increasing. And day-by-day you see "market experts" saying oil is expected to go to $150... $160... $170... As more and more people read this and buy into it, they actually BUY into it. Therefore the demand for a barrel of oil (from investors) shoots up.

If you look at overall worldwide consumption of oil, the price increase is out of whack with actual usage increases. It really doesn't matter if you drive less, the price will still go up. Just as housing was starting to go soft and people stopped flipping, housing costs had still remained high, until the market reset years later due to ARMs resetting and predatory lending. There is enough land and there were plenty of houses available, but the housing boom led to prices being out of whack actually increase of population. People were losing jobs, losing money to dot coms, unemployment was up, but it kept going up. How can someone afford the housing costs? Creative lending....

With the oil futures market, there will be a shift within time. Right now with unemployment data looking dismal, real estate being dismal, and the stock market also being dismal -- the big time investors are going all in towards oil. Further driving up the price.

The SPECULATION that we're "running out of oil" is controlling the price. And the article above SUMMED IT UP PERFECTLY. It doesn't matter WHERE the oil comes from -- a barrel of oil will cost the SAME whether it comes from Saudi Arabia via OPEC or pumped locally. Therefore tapping ANWR is NOT going to lower oil prices. And OPEC will simply cut their production since it's a global commodity.
Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:23 am View user's profile Find all posts by bodom Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
bodom



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts10653
LocationINDIANAPOLIS
Bank4294967295
Bones999999999.99 Bones
Game Trophies:  4
Hall Of Fame Member

Post Reply with quote
Oil over $143 a barrel. The first paragraph says it all. Oil is high due to [b]investor[/b] demand.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

Oil prices surged above $143 a barrel for the first time ever Monday, as a weaker dollar spurred investors to seek refuge in dollar-denominated oil futures to hedge against inflation.
Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:10 pm View user's profile Find all posts by bodom Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
dexxtreme



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts3406
LocationThe Alamo
Bank4294967295
Bones11701.78 Bones
Game Trophies:  1
Hall Of Fame Member

Post Reply with quote
I think that the only "real" solution will take over a decade to implement. We would have to convert about 80% of our transportation infrastructure to an electric-based system. (I don't know of any other available system that would not be dependent on gasoline.) We would need highly improved energy storage technology, electric cars, electrified mass transit, hybrid-based semi's for shipping, an increased number of power plants, etc. Assuming that we had enough available technology to implement all of this today, it would take at least a decade for the existing infrastructure to start wearing out and be replaced with new, replacement infrastructure. However, since we do not have any mass-produced electric vehicles ready for mass consumption (most are limited run electric vehicles or fleet vehicles), it will take several years before electric vehicles are in the hands of the masses.
Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:51 pm View user's profile Find all posts by dexxtreme Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
MHC



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts22860
LocationSomewhere quietly gaining power...
Bank4294967295
Bones999999999.99 Bones

Post Reply with quote
[color=darkred]I think you're right, dexx...but if I had my way, it would only take 10 years to build it. A grid of nuclear driven mass transit trains could be built and administered on a local, then regional, then national level. Urban/susburban "pods" would resemble today's subway and el systems. They would be the basic blocks of regional systems that would interconnect "pods" with moderate sized high speed rail (in the SE, it would interconnect Atlanta, Birmingham, Montgomery, Chattanooga, Memphis, Charlotte, etc). Those would then be connected to a national grid with larger high speed trains.

The snafu facing commitment to such a plan would be it's reliance on nuclear power until cleaner methods of generating electricity are sufficiently developed.

Even with clean vehicles on the horizon, there would still be a need for long distance mass transit and a change in driving habits locally. Any effective long term conservation plan would have to consider a simpler, lower maintenance/longer life traffic infrastructure.[/color]
Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:32 pm View user's profile Find all posts by MHC Send private message
noirprncess



Joined27 Sep 2005
Posts18132
LocationNorthern NJ
Bank4294967295
Bones29117.66 Bones

Post Reply with quote
Dexx and MrHC - those are the same things I have said for years now regarding the lack of accessible mass transit. The HUGE downfall is lack of funding. NYC as an example is experiencing a HUGE upswing (as are other public transit systems) in ridership. However, due to fiscal mismanagement and lack of advanced planning, they are in such a financial hole that they can't keep up with their annual maintenance, let alone the exspansion (sp) projects on the books. As a result many projects are more than 10 - 15 years behind schedule to begin with.

This is the same problem that is repeated (on varying levels) around the country. Even IF we got government support to provide an aggressive plan supported with federal funds, we still wouldn't have a cohesive transit system in place. Confused

Historical example - look at how railroads were developed in the US and now the fight over ownership of the remaining (under or unused) rails.
Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:54 pm View user's profile Find all posts by noirprncess Send private message Yahoo Messenger
bodom



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts10653
LocationINDIANAPOLIS
Bank4294967295
Bones999999999.99 Bones
Game Trophies:  4
Hall Of Fame Member

Post Reply with quote
[quote="dexxtreme"]I think that the only "real" solution will take over a decade to implement. We would have to convert about 80% of our transportation infrastructure to an electric-based system. (I don't know of any other available system that would not be dependent on gasoline.) We would need highly improved energy storage technology, electric cars, electrified mass transit, hybrid-based semi's for shipping, an increased number of power plants, etc. [/quote]
Please keep in mind that electricity is not "free". Trading a dependency on oil to a dependency on electricity doesn't exactly solve everything. People talk about "clean burning". The truth is that gasoline puts the pollution at the motor level. You see the exhaust coming out of the pipes. However, electric engines DO pollute. But it's not at the motor level, but rather the pollution increases at the power plant.

When gas goes up, you see it. The prices are posted and you know how much a gallon of gas costs. But when your utility company raises the costs of a KwH on your rate, you really don't see it, because it's hard to calculate just how much electricity costs for each item that uses it.

The cost of producing electricity also heavily relies on another fossil fuel. And that would be coal. It's easy to say "oh let's just get rid of coal and put more solar and wind turbines up". But the technology is not there to produce mass amounts of energy from these sources. Not to mention the land required, the battery technology of today, and different climates in which to implement these ideas. Solar can work by putting panels up in the Mojave Desert, but it won't work well if you put panels up in Seattle.

Coal is king, but there are a few ways to produce electricity that does not rely on fossil fuels. One is hydroelectric power which uses water to produce electricity. The downside to this is the damming of rivers that's required for this, which leads to lower water flow and decrease in fish in rivers such as salmon. Also, as this water must be pooled, this can lead to increased flooding in surrounding areas. Also, climate change can affect hydro plants in the event of a severe drought.

Also, nuclear power does not use fossil fuels. However, when people hear the word "nuclear", they harken back to crises such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and think of nuclear fallout. Try telling a town that you want to build a new nuclear power plant and watch how they will fight its construction.

[quote="dexxtreme"]Assuming that we had enough available technology to implement all of this today, it would take at least a decade for the existing infrastructure to start wearing out and be replaced with new, replacement infrastructure. However, since we do not have any mass-produced electric vehicles ready for mass consumption (most are limited run electric vehicles or fleet vehicles), it will take several years before electric vehicles are in the hands of the masses.[/quote]
I'm not so sure electric is really better than gasoline. One thing to keep in mind about electric cars is the battery technology and time it takes to recharge. It's not very good. Also, the power generated by a gasoline car far exceeds that of an electric car. Also, how long do the batteries last? They get progressively worse over time therefore reducing the distance (miles per charge) you can go on one charge and how much would a recharge of your battery cost if you go on a long trip? It sounds nice to say, "oh just plug in the car at night", but the added stress on the power grid could pose even more problems. We already have issues with power demand during peak summer season with computers and A/C running 24/7 and rolling blackouts. Electricity isn't magic, y'know.
Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:36 pm View user's profile Find all posts by bodom Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
dexxtreme



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts3406
LocationThe Alamo
Bank4294967295
Bones11701.78 Bones
Game Trophies:  1
Hall Of Fame Member

Post Reply with quote
I know that electricity isn't magic, however it is all we have for now. There is a benefit of moving the emissions from moving vehicles to a power plant. At a power plant it is a lot easier to mitigate those issues by filtering out some of the deadly chemicals. Instead of having millions of cars out there with varying levels of efficiency and pollution generating capacity (I see and smell cars with engine problems all the time), you can concentrate those emissions and more effectively mitigate them.

There is currently a lot of research in energy storage technologies such as ultracapacitors and lithium-ion polymer batteries. Once we can store enough energy, it will not be an issue to get 300 miles on a single charge. They also have to shorten the charging time significantly as well, however. It would require a ton more research money.

Also, moving to nuclear is not as scary proposition as everyone fears. Chernobyl failed because they did not maintain it properly. Three Mile Island didn't even result in any injuries or deaths. Until fusion power is developed, nuclear is probably one of the cleanest large-scale technologies we have available. (Coal, oil, and natural gas all have emissions issues, and hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, wind, and wave/tidal power is not consistent enough to be deployed everywhere.) It is relatively easy to contain nuclear waste when compared to scrubbing exhaust from a coal plant (just properly bury it in a secured location and it will be safe).

As of now, the widespread usage of electric vehicle would not be considered a panacea, however as of now it is the closest thing we have.
Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:44 pm View user's profile Find all posts by dexxtreme Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
MHC



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts22860
LocationSomewhere quietly gaining power...
Bank4294967295
Bones999999999.99 Bones

Post Reply with quote
[color=darkred]Stupid assed uber-environmentalists spent so much time and money vilifying nuclear power they have most Americans deathly afraid of one of the best large-scale clean(er) energy options available.[/color]
Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:51 pm View user's profile Find all posts by MHC Send private message
bodom



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts10653
LocationINDIANAPOLIS
Bank4294967295
Bones999999999.99 Bones
Game Trophies:  4
Hall Of Fame Member

Post Reply with quote
Gas is going to shoot even higher by next month. Oil closed at over $147 a barrel.

Oil Sets New Record Above $147 a Barrel.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PainAtThePump/wireStory?id=5353919

Another thing that's making me laugh is that almost all the gas stations here are getting away from manual signs such as this one:
[img]http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/2239d954-51a3-48f8-95e8-e35618fa5e7d_mn.jpg[/img]

in favor of digital signs. But those digital signs are already obsolete. They have space for 3 digits. So the highest it'll go is 9.99 9/10.
Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:39 pm View user's profile Find all posts by bodom Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
SoulLady



Joined10 Apr 2002
Posts5467
Bank0
Bones345.58 Bones

Post Reply with quote
It's $3.99 in Frederick MD.
Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:40 pm View user's profile Find all posts by SoulLady Send private message
MHC



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts22860
LocationSomewhere quietly gaining power...
Bank4294967295
Bones999999999.99 Bones

Post Reply with quote
[color=darkred]In ATL, our prices match the area code...fo'oh-fo'.

Has anybody checked out T. Boone Pickens' plan???

Very intriguing. I'll post more about it later.[/color]
Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:46 pm View user's profile Find all posts by MHC Send private message
AngelX



Joined27 Oct 2004
Posts1627
LocationSomewhere between Heaven and Hell
Bank0
Bones7330.14 Bones

Post Reply with quote
Dont have time to read this whole thread now, but I recall a year or two back when I was posting on here that folks need to get over their big gas guzzling SUV addiction and someone responded that their kid said I was just jealous that they were 'rolling on 20s' or some nonsense like that.
Well...here we are, get all bent outa shape when Exxon Mobile started asking..Who's ya daddy now? Twisted Evil
Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:22 pm View user's profile Find all posts by AngelX Send private message Send e-mail
Omega Phoenix



Joined17 Jan 2002
Posts28103
LocationIn the wilderness, being a Prophet of Rage
Bank4294967295
Bones48177.28 Bones

Post Reply with quote
(Sarcasm)

Here are some more whiners who do nothing but complain about the high price of gas... lazy good-for-nothing folks at Meals on Wheels... always looking for handouts...

(/Sarcasm)

[url=http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1054203,CST-NWS-wheels14.article]Harder To Get Wheels To Deliver Meals[/url]

Joseph Alvarez simply ran out of gas.

Alvarez loved driving 32 miles around Palatine in his Subaru everyday, delivering meals to seniors citizens for the last year. But with gas prices averaging $4.21 a gallon, he decided to throw in the towel.

Community Nutrition Network, which runs suburban Cook County's Meals on Wheels, couldn't reimburse him as much anymore and with his limited income, Alvarez, a 61-year-old retiree, couldn't afford it.

"I'm using my own car. I'm trying to help people. I need new tires. My car is getting roughed up," he said. "I finally said, 'That's it. The price of gas keeps going up and up and you guys are cutting my allowance down. I can't do it anymore.'"

Volunteer drivers for home delivered meals programs have become another casualty of exorbitant gas prices. Actual service hasn't been affected in the Chicago area, according to most local Meals on Wheels organizers who said many remaining volunteers are willing to drive extra shifts. However, they are concerned that the number of volunteers will continue to drop.

Sandy Werner, the Schaumburg and Elk Grove Village Meals on Wheels coordinator, said volunteer drivers have always dropped out for various reasons. But now she's having a hard time finding replacements.

"No one's calling to volunteer. Who can blame them?" Werner said.

A recent Meals on Wheels Association of America survey found that 58 percent of its local chapters lost volunteers because of gas prices.
Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:40 pm View user's profile Find all posts by Omega Phoenix Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Najee



Joined06 Apr 2002
Posts6945
Bank0
Bones21598.12 Bones

Post Well, well, well! Reply with quote
Look what the hell I pulled up!

More than 10 years ago, some of you clowns (bodom, Marz) thought I lost my mind when I said $3-per-gallon gasoline was the new norm! Here we are, 11 years later and gasoline prices consistently have been $3 or more per gallon. You're used to paying it now, to the point topics such as this aren't even alarming!

How ya like me now!
Wed Jul 24, 2019 12:09 am View user's profile Find all posts by Najee Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:    

Reply to topic    Afrocentric Online Forum Index » Da Corner All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28
Page 28 of 28

 
Jump to: 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Design by Freestyle XL / Flowers Online.