Political & Elections

longprime · Guru

RE: Gas prices

winchester · Guru

The choices are many. Along with solar and wind, there are biofuel and biochemical choices. Of course, we'd have to do a lot more by way of fuel efficiency too. We are way behind in that - for the same reason we have not branched out to the alternatives - the oil/coal lobby. We may not cut out the use of oil altogether, but, if the money that has been spent on just tax breaks to oil and coal over many years had been spent on the alternatives, there would be a robust choice of fuels by now. None of these technologies aren't any more difficult that getting oil out of rock and sand and refining it. They are clearly less complicated and safer technologies than coal mining. Many make that look like a cake walk. If BP could own the sun, solar energy would have replaced coal for electricity long ago.

Solar and wind are non starters. You can’t refuel a car with those.

As for the “way more fuel efficient” part, that’s a pipe dream; a fantasy. There’s only so much energy stored in a gallon of gas, and the laws of physics and thermodynamics limit how much of that energy can actually be extracted. There is a real limit on the number of automobile or truck miles that can be extracted from a gallon of gas. We’re very close to that limit already.

As for the use of biofuel, that too is a pipe dream. “there is simply not enough farmland on the earth to grow enough biofuel crops to yield sufficient oil to replace crude oil. With even with 1,000 barrels coming from each square mile of crops, and every inch of arable farm land in the world dedicated to growing biofuel crops, we would only be able to obtain 20% of the oil necessary to match world consumption today - and world consumption continues to increase as the amount of suitable arable farmland decreases.”

There be no room left to grow crops to feed people.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Can-Biodiesel-Replace-Crude-Oil.htm
http://www.energyjustice.net/biodiesel

Your views remind me of an episode of The Big Bang Theory, in which Jimmy, an old acquaintance of the physicists Leonard, Howard, and Sheldon tries to get them on board with his great money making idea:

Jimmy: Okay, here it is. I have this great money-making idea. I just need a gear head to get it to the finish line.

Sheldon: Technically, Howard’s the gear head. Leonard’s just a dime store laser jockey.

Leonard: What’s the idea?

Jimmy: This is just between us, right?

Leonard: Right.

Jimmy: Okay. What do you think about a pair of glasses that makes any movie you want into 3D?

Raj: That sounds amazing. First movie I’m watching, Annie.

Howard: How exactly would these glasses work?

Jimmy: How the hell should I know? That’s why I need a nerd.

Leonard: I don’t think something like that’s even possible.

Jimmy: Aw, come on, you can figure it out.

http://bigbangtrans.wordpress.com/series-5-episode-11-the-speckerman-recurrence/

Cat is right:
To make the case that an oil company conspiracy has held back alternatives requires ignoring that the government has been shelling out money for renewables since Carter I was in office. And requires believing that the national labs, along with all private efforts, hire only the dimmer bulbs, the ones the oil lobby conspiracy passed over. Otherwise, you're left with peddling the belief that some process, one that produces energy competively with fossil fuels, has been ruthlessly suppressed by the usual suspects.

busdriver11 · Guru

Annoying, wasn't it, longprime? Had we all waited just a bit, we could have gotten quite a discount. Son is fine, yes it is great that UPMC is right there. He had a high fever and almost passed out, went to the hospital because on a Sunday night, where else are you going to go. Looks like it was just a virus, thankfully. I can't imagine how much it would suck if you didn't have health insurance.

And hope, isn't every thread a cranky venting thread? Maybe it doesn't start that way, but it surely ends there!

Thanks, cartera, we could use some good news right now. But honestly, the most important thing is that the kiddo is just fine. So hard when they are so far away. I used to always be able to tuck him onto the couch with the dogs snuggled up onto him, give him liquids and his favorite foods, and take his temperature every 30 minutes. Now there's just no control.

-- Edited by busdriver11 on Tuesday 28th of February 2012 07:10:50 PM

winchester · Guru

“From what I understand about hybrids, is the cost of a new battery is incredibly expensive, not hundreds of dollars, but thousands.

That's true.

I bought a new car a couple of years ago. I looked into hybrids. They're not cost effective.

They cost more to buy and to maintnain because of the additional technology. It's not just an internal combustion drive train that has to be mainted, it's also the electric one, and the syncronization of the two.

Batteries do not last forever, even rechargeable ones. Eventually they have to be replaced.

As it turns out, "eventually" is right around the break even point in the tradeoff between gas savings and the extra dough you have to shell out to buy the car in the first place. And it cost about $3,000 to get the new battery.

longprime · Guru

I always have problems with R's, Forgot to correct.

It's like Railroads, can you spell that without any R's. evileye

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

BTW - who is Prima? I know a longprime and a pima, but I must have missed something along the way. Is it someone's name? I have noticed it more than once.

longprime · Guru

Cart,

do you have a 2010 model? Generation #3?

I see that the 2012 low end models have done away with the rear camera and other blings.

Cartera · Guru

From what I understand about hybrids, is the cost of a new battery is incredibly expensive, not hundreds of dollars, but thousands.

The battery has a warranty for 80-100k miles. There is no reported battery failures in Priuses since the 2004 model. There were a couple reported prior to that but under warranty. It is more likely that over time, there may be battery degradation, resulting in lower gas mileage or power. People who have had to replace them due to accidents typically get them from other damaged cars - costing a few hundred rather than thousands.

I consistently get 52 mpg on mine - closer to 58 in city driving - but I know how to drive it. Most people don't.

longprime · Guru

Cat,

Rather than spill the water, BPA said that the Dams were to generate electricity Because turbines incorporate less gas into the water than spilling the water.

Dams being removed are small, old/inefficient designs and used for only for peaking power. And won't be removed until money is found to remove them.

Looks like PNW again has abundant snow pack for 2012. Californians get to benefit from our excess water. evileye

catahoula · Guru

Yep, "Never" is exactly when they'll do it and until then Cali will have to make do with the capacity left after they encouraged a few to shut down. It ain't easy being the greenest on the block and it certainly ain't cheap.

I wouldn't stick "water" in with the rest of those. It's the cheapest of the cheap but the trend has been to remove dams, not build them. The fish, you know.

And when fish rights trump those of government subsidy consumers, you know they're in the drivers seat to stay:

BPA says rising runoff has pushed dissolved gas levels at most of the eight federal dams on the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers above Washington and Oregon water quality standards, which threatens protected salmon and steelhead. Under those circumstances, it says it can't reduce hydro generation because that means sending more water over the spillways, which increases gas levels.

Wind developers and investor owned utilities who have built their own wind farms contend BPA has no right to unilaterally cancel their transmission contracts, particularly when it provides no compensation. BPA does substitute free hydropower for the lost power deliveries, but it does not make up the lost tax and renewable energy credits that are only generated when wind farms are operating.

Heck, I'll root for the fish on this one.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

If there was only a tax credit for keeping my kid in tip top physical shape. Of course, with the gas to go to club practices 35 miles away (times two), two to three times a week, plus tournament driving, I am afraid to truly add up all the miles spent driving to my kid's practices for her sports.

If only I could have afforded the Prius when I bought this compact car in 2008. I just couldn't swing the extra cost.

Last night, I bought gas for $4.45 a gallon. That was two cents cheaper a gallon than the station I normally buy at! Whoo hoo!

Yes, I am cranky.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Tuesday 28th of February 2012 04:46:16 PM

longprime · Guru

The Prius is more friendly for seniors who have a problem in getting into/out of bucket seats and narrow doors. I got 3 over 90. And I hate my Civic because of the low seat. evileye And if given the choice of a pickup over the Civic, the pickup wins and damn the cost of gas. biggrin

longprime · Guru

Absolutely Prima.

It is a societal problem, if one believes it to be. One political faction believes that the problem is not and the other does.

The opportunity cost return of the Prius was about 7 years in late 2008 (high gas price) and even longer now when gas prices collapse. However, it gives us great pride that our gas usage means less money is being shipped to other countries, and we lessen the need to drill, and drill, and drill some more. evileye

If we had money as the Romney's, then perhaps I wouldn't care on how much money we spend. ashamed

winchester · Guru

You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no extra maintenance cost. They are warrantied in California for 150k miles.

You're right about the waranty on the new priuses. Other manufacturers are follwoing suit. And as the technology matures the costs will obviously come down. But overall it still costs more to own an operate a hybrid than an equivalent conventional car.

The $3,000 figure I gave was for the Honda I was looking at. It is the price the dealer quoted. The amount varies by car, but it's not cheap. For example, the prius is one of the cheaper ones. Interestingly, the newer batteries cost more, not less:

John Hanson, Toyota's National Manager, Environmental, Safety & Quality Communications:

The cost of the pack varies with the year of the Prius. Replacement batteries for the 2001-2003 Prius cost $2,299, and those for the more common 2004-2009 model currently run $2,588. May 13, 2011 http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1059907_the-ultimate-guide-toyota-prius-battery-life-cost-and-warranty

Edmunds 2012 Buying Guide:

The most important question has to do with "payback," which is the calculation of the length of time it will take cheaper running costs to match the increased purchase cost, which might range from several years to decades depending on fuel prices. In terms of warranties, the carmakers usually offer longer coverage for the hybrid-specific components (typically about 8 years), so you're covered if something goes wrong with the batteries or electric motor. The cost of replacing a battery pack varies, although it's not as expensive as consumers once feared. http://www.edmunds.com/hybrid/before-buy.html

A few more quotes, all current:

Hybrid cars have a much higher indicial cost, between $2,000- $4,000 more than a comparable non-hybrid. The battery in a hybrid car can cost about $4,000, and has a life span of 8-10 years so, unless gas prices triple, you will never break even when buying a hybrid. March 21, 2011 http://community.greencupboards.com/2011/03/21/the-pros-and-cons-of-hybrid-cars/

Even with the tax credits, the amount of time it would take for a hybrid owner to “break-even” was several years. The break-even is the point at which you would start to realize some actual savings from lower fuel costs. Now, that break-even extends out to six or more years for most hybrids. For instance, the break-even for a Civic Honda hybrid is nearly 7 years. On a Toyota Camry it’s closer to 11 years. Jan 17, 2012 http://www.directbanc.com/about/do-hybrid-cars-save-money/

Q. I'm thinking of buying a hybrid car. I know gas prices are high, but are hybrids worth their extra cost?

A. It depends on the model, and on various costs associated with the car. Hybrids typically have a sticker price that's about 20 percent higher than their all-gas counterparts. They can also cost more to insure, because their drivers tend to log more miles. And they can also cost more to repair, because specialized mechanics are needed and, with the cars being relatively new, the market for spare parts is not well developed.

Moreover, you can expect less wiggle room in negotiating a deal on a hybrid. When gas prices climb, so does demand. And the recent Japan earthquake and tsunami halted production of certain models, leaving inventories scarce.
The hybrid's claim to fame — better fuel efficiency — is also open to interpretation. Some four-cylinder models get 40 mpg or more on the highway, about 10 more than what an all-gas car of similar size can manage. But luxury sedan and SUV hybrids may get only 20 mpg, a mere 5 mpg improvement over all-gas models. Plus, that four-cylinder hybrid probably costs only $5,000 more, while the big hybrid's price is about $10,000 higher.
In tracking five-year ownership costs, Consumer Reports finds that only about half of hybrids will save you money in the long run. It's usually the smaller, less expensive models, with a payback of one to two years.
But the other half — typically larger and luxury hybrids — result in higher overall costs than what you'd pay for a gas counterpart, with payback periods likely running longer than the period you would own the car. June 10, 2011 http://www.aarp.org/money/budgeting-saving/info-06-2011/hybrids-save-money-ask-sid.html

-- Edited by winchester on Tuesday 28th of February 2012 03:38:06 PM

-- Edited by winchester on Tuesday 28th of February 2012 03:38:37 PM

pima · Guru

longprime,

From what I understand about hybrids, is the cost of a new battery is incredibly expensive, not hundreds of dollars, but thousands. Additionally the irony is their green car has a green issue regarding the disposal of the battery; this is why I have heard it costs a lot.

25% long run may not be totally true. Plus, there are now many cars that get 35+ MPG without the hybrid issue.

Our true problem as a society is we desire larger cars from an image perspective.

Perfect example, a very good friends DD is pregnant with her 1st child, due in May. She had to buy a Tahoe the day she found out she was pregnant so she could get adjusted to the car size before the baby came hmm

The car she had was a 2 yr old 4 door BMW325i, granted not a great gas mileage car, but not as bad as a Tahoe. I am not begrudging her buying it, but her defense was she needed a larger car for the baby. What on earth does she need a larger car for, she has no pets, this is her 1st born. Folks and IL's live less than 3 miles away. She did it because of society, and that is the perception she has in her mind, get pregnant, buy a mini-van or an SUV.

People are like sheep with image being a driving force in their thought process, and because of that SUV's will always sell regardless of prices, and that action will cause the demand to remain high.

Going back to Europe compared to us, that is why I actually have pity for them when it comes to prices. Go to Italy and all you see are motorcycles and Smart cars. The family car would be the size of a Ford focus. You can't tell me they don't have kids. Thus, again, one problem with us regarding the price of fuel is our desire regarding image.

Cartera · Guru

As it turns out, "eventually" is right around the break even point in the tradeoff between gas savings and the extra dough you have to shell out to buy the car in the first place. And it cost about $3,000 to get the new battery.

You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no extra maintenance cost. The batteries are built to last the life of the car and there are many out there going fine at 200k miles. Mine has over 150k. They are warrantied in California for 150k miles. There are so few reported failures out there from the time Priuses first appeared on the market that they estimate the likeligood at 0.002. That's pretty good odds. Even when people need new ones from accidents, they buy used ones that still have plenty of life left in them - for no where near $3000k. The price of new ones continues to go down.

-- Edited by Cartera on Tuesday 28th of February 2012 01:49:37 PM

longprime · Guru

well my civiic (99 and 00 civic ) stinks. My mechanic says that I got a lemon.

you have a pickup to trade evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 28th of February 2012 01:35:31 PM

pima · Guru

winchester thanks for the number, I thought I read it was 3K+, but didn't want to jump and say it was.

Penn from Penn and Teller has a show on cable called BullSh*t!

In one episode he did the hybrid vs non-hybrid car.

He interviews people, and they he debunks the myth.

That was the 1st time I heard about the battery disposal issue.

My favorite episode was organic foods.

It was hysterical.

He set up shop outside of Whole Foods, and every person stated they only eat organic, swearing it tasted better. However, when the taste test occurred they did not select the organic apple.

He also discussed how the Obama's have an organic garden, believe it or not they were not the 1st, Clinton's were. The funny fact is that the garden that the Clinton's had was over a leech field, and because of septic issues, the Obama's had to move it.

longprime,

Our 89 Accord with 111k miles cost us in repairs 1500 bucks over the course of 12 yrs. Brakes, tires, oil changes not included. My Acura MDX with 70K miles cost me zip! Your Honda must have been built on a Monday! biggrin

OBTW my cousin is a mechanic that worked his way up to sales. He sells Volvo's and his belief is if you change the oil on a Honda you can't kill them. That says someting when his livelihood exists on Volvo.

-- Edited by pima on Tuesday 28th of February 2012 12:57:37 PM

catahoula · Guru

That California gas prices are typically higher than the rest of the country's would have something to do with the fact they decided on their own blends of fuel and stranded their market.

Free market capitalism would dictate an opportunity, one for someone willing to build another refinery and profit from the price differential, right? Which begs the question of: why haven't a well-heeled group of our dependably greedy profiteers done so?

Maybe they know they'll never, ever, get the permits.

winchester · Guru

Answer the question.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Hm. Gas prices spiked up to 3.75ish and now it's been slowly falling for a few days. It's in the 3.50s right now. We're going on break next week and gas prices tend to fall here when there's going to be a lot of traffic (figure that one out...) so I'm hoping that it hovers around $3.50 for a week or so. I'm going down to Ohio for part of break where gas tends to be cheaper. Yippie.

pima · Guru

geeps, the fed maybe getting a cut of it due to taxes, but the states are too.

In VA, it is not uncommon for DC drivers to come to VA to fill up their tanks because DC has placed a lot of taxes on gasoline.

longprime · Guru

Cat,

CA will probably Never going to build another refinery.

1. Coastal CA may sink into the Pacific or drift off to Oregon. evileye

2. Coastal CA is subject to tsunamii, Shades of Fukushima. ashamed

3. Gasoline consumption has been decllning for more than a couple of decades because of transportation efficiency. USA, intotal, is using less gasoline/fuel-oil for the last decade.

4. Current refinery capacity is constrainted by crude imports and not by domestic production.

5. Electric production shift from liquids to water/wind/solar/NG. Last spring (2011) BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) who manages PNW power plants and electric power distribution to CA, told CA utilities that BPA will no longer accept wind-energy power in OR/WA because BPA has so much water generation power; BPA told CA, they could literally shut down several nuclear and fossil plants for a month, and have PNW water generated electicity for cost. That's cheap.

6. CA is #2 in Prius/capita behind Vermont and ahead of Oregon at #3. CA is the leader in foreign nameplate auto ownership. In 2009, full year, we personally bettered our auto fuel efficiency +25%, by driving a Prius (42mpg) vs the Camry (32mpg).

DS now has the Camry which is 14 yo. He could concievably better his auto consumption by +25% by going hybrid and +50% if he does plugin/hybrid (has a charging station infront of his house).

-- Edited by longprime on Monday 27th of February 2012 08:30:40 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Monday 27th of February 2012 08:33:55 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Monday 27th of February 2012 08:35:33 PM

winchester · Guru

it could have been years ago without the oil and coal lobby very effectively keeping out all competition.

How, exactly? Please explain.

Cars, planes, ships, trains.

What fuel would power them? How much would it cost to produce it? What technology would their engines work on? How much would it cost to produce them? How much would it cost to replace all of the current cars, planes, ships, and trains with new ones that run on this magical alternative fuel you imagine?

And who would do it? What company?

geeps20 · Senior Member

the feds are getting their nice cut on the taxes from gas..do you really think they care the price is rising?

Cartera · Guru

In order to develop robust alternatives to oil it has to be technogically possible AND cost less.

That's right and it could have been years ago without the oil and coal lobby very effectively keeping out all competition.

winchester · Guru

If there were truly a free market, we would have developed robust alternatives to oil decades ago

That's a little bit like saying if there were truly a free market we'd have 100 MPG internal combustion engine cars by now, or teleportation.

There's no logic to your logic. You're connecting things that aren't related.

You may as well have said "If we can put a man on the moon then why can't we make self washing windows?"

In order to develop robust alternatives to oil it has to be technogically possible AND cost less.

Cartera · Guru

Nobody says that free market capitalism makes things cheap. We know, however, that the monopoly the oil companies enforce on our energy policy flies in the face of free market capitalism. If there were truly a free market, we would have developed robust alternatives to oil decades ago.

john doe · Guru

Perhaps its theoretically possible, but that runs counter to the "free market capitalism" that Mitt, Ricky and Newt espouse.

Cartera · Guru

Since we can't force the oil companies to keep the oil we drill here, it won't matter. The demand is so high in China and other parts of the world that they will continue to pay whatever it takes to get what they need. That means we'll keep paying what they're willing to pay. The oil from the tar sands will be exported too and the pipeline will bypass our refineries in the midwest. When they stop operating at capacity, that will likely cause our price of gas to go up rather than down.

catahoula · Guru

BP might end up with the dimmer spots - Exxon and Shell would own the rest.

To make the case that an oil company conspiracy has held back alternatives requires ignoring that the government has been shelling out money for renewables since Carter I was in office. And requires believing that the national labs, along with all private efforts, hire only the dimmer bulbs, the ones the oil lobby conspiracy passed over. Otherwise, you're left with peddling the belief that some process, one that produces energy competively with fossil fuels, has been ruthlessly suppressed by the usual suspects.

-- Edited by catahoula on Monday 27th of February 2012 06:05:58 PM

Cartera · Guru

The choices are many. Along with solar and wind, there are biofuel and biochemical choices. Of course, we'd have to do a lot more by way of fuel efficiency too. We are way behind in that - for the same reason we have not branched out to the alternatives - the oil/coal lobby. We may not cut out the use of oil altogether, but, if the money that has been spent on just tax breaks to oil and coal over many years had been spent on the alternatives, there would be a robust choice of fuels by now. None of these technologies aren't any more difficult that getting oil out of rock and sand and refining it. They are clearly less complicated and safer technologies than coal mining. Many make that look like a cake walk. If BP could own the sun, solar energy would have replaced coal for electricity long ago.

-- Edited by Cartera on Monday 27th of February 2012 02:45:05 PM

pima · Guru

Yes, companies will export to maximize profits, but you are missing a key point here. We can hold our elected official's feet to the fire because of drilling, which is what they control.

Supply and demand. Less supply and more demand will drive up prices, agreed? Simple economics.

With no clear energy plan for oil, we choke the supply portion of that equation within our country. If we opened up drilling, the supply would be greater and could stabilize the prices or at least slow down the rise in prices.

Poetsheart · Senior Member

What fuel would power them? How much would it cost to produce it? What technology would their engines work on? How much would it cost to produce them? How much would it cost to replace all of the current cars, planes, ships, and trains with new ones that run on this magical alternative fuel you imagine? And who would do it? What company?

Well then, I guess we are well and truly screwed since we are locked into the use of fossil fuels for all our foreseeable transportation needs. Given the fact that emerging economies are quickly identifying and laying claim to sources for their exponentially increasing demands, and unlike what the oil companies would like people to believe, the supply is finite. The price of oil and gas will only go up, up, up (no matter how much we drill, no matter who has the majority in Congress, and no matter who's in the Oval Office.

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Monday 27th of February 2012 01:47:18 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Monday 27th of February 2012 01:48:14 PM

john doe · Guru

"As for oil products- as recently as 3 months ago, USA was exporting oil products. "

This is the main point for those of you who think the president has control. No matter how much oil the US produces, companies will export it to maximize their profit and if it is under significant demand, the price will go up regardless if it is Bush or Obama who is or was president.

I suggest those of you who think its because of the Democrats or anybody in particular check out this site: http://cafim.sssup.it/~giulio/other/oil_price/report.html

Since 2000 regardless of who's president or who controls congress, in the words of Dennis Gartman: the price of crude is moving from the lower left to the upper right.

longprime · Guru

Plenty of places to drill in Texas.

The major drillers have in the last two years moved from going from gas to liquids. Why do you think that is? Maybe because free market forces a reallocation of assets to more profitable areas? There is so much NG available that a developer can't even give the stuff away.

As for oil products- as recently as 3 months ago, USA was exporting oil products.

Anybody want to buy a Cheap, Ford F350, Crewcab, Diesel? 12mpg. Dual tanks. Very clean. evileye

Made in USA. evileye Now Cheaper. biggrin

pima · Guru

john doe wrote:

So Pima, which of these do you believe?? That the president has control over the price of oil or not?

john doe, do I think the President has some rheostat on his desk he can simply turn and set the proce of oil? Certainly not. But we elect a President to LEAD -- set an agenda and try to work with Congress to make it happen.

In Bush's case, when gas prices hit the highs you mention, he tried this and was unsuccessful in getting a Democrat-controlled Congress to work with him on a compomise. Some of the policies he wanted (increased off-shore drilling, more exploration in the United States, increased use of coal and nuclear power, etc.) were simply a No-Go for the Democrats in Congress.

So, in Bush's case, yes -- he failed.

In Obama's case, he could have set realistic energy policies in his first two years of office, knowing that his party controlled both houses of Congress and would most likely support him. He didn't. And now, when he could once again attempt to set this agenda, he does so timidly, even knowing the party now controlling Congress would back him.

Besides, setting those policies is one thing; achieving the fruits of that labor takes time. Simply stated, we could take all the measures stated above, and we'd still have the same high gas prices for a while.

I DO get that some of these actions may not be popular. Some may add to the pollution problem, or damage our planet even further. Someone has to ask the question: "is it worth paying $6-7 / gallon of gas at the pump to you, America?" A leader should be strong enough (and honest enough) to ask that question to the American public. I jut don't think Obama has that ladership (or courage) to do so.

So, in Obama's case -- Yes, he failed. And continues to do so.

Lots of words to simply state: He doesn't have total influence on the price I pay at th pump, but heck yeah a President does have quite a bit.

I won't even go into the ways his foreign policies have an even greater impact. We'll just stick to a domestic civics lesson....

john doe · Guru

"

john doe,

The difference was the Houses were owned by Dems and refused to allow drilling. Bush could only open the reserves, which is exactly what he did. Why blame Bush as an R if the other party tied his hands? R's are not tying Obama's hands. Obama is tieing his own hands because he needs the D's to vote for him in 12, and drilling has always been a big no-no for his party.

Each president has a different make up when it comes to the House. In 06 -08 it was Pelosi and Reid who ran roughshod because they knew that whatever Bush wanted they could stop it in their tracks, and he would not have enough votes to veto it. "

"One other thing, in O's defense, people forget why 1 reason gas prices are increasing which he has absolutely no control over. China and India. These 2 countries are moving into the 21st century and their demand is very high compared to even 10 yrs ago. The way economics in a global economy works is the same as small town USA. Supply and demand."

So Pima, which of these do you believe?? That the president has control over the price of oil or not?

busdriver11 · Guru

I just filled up my tank with the cheapest gas around, $3.76/gallon. Just a few weeks ago, it was about $.40/gallon cheaper. I don't think it would have been so noticeable if it wasn't so sudden. I am relieved we bought a Prius a few years ago, it seemed like a waste of money to spend the extra premium for that car, because gas prices dropped soon afterwards, but over the long haul, I think it's worth it.

I rarely notice food prices rising because I'm the ultimate bargain shopper, so all I do is adapt. Shop at several different discount stores and buy what's on sale/cheap that we like (fred meyer and Costco are the best). When beef is expensive, I buy chicken, and vice versa. Buy fruit/veg that is in season and try not to buy food I end up throwing away. Go out to dinner with the entertainment guide, get a meal free, use the leftovers. Back in the days of dual unemployment, I got so handy with triple coupons, I could get bags of groceries for free. Yes, I could be an extreme couponer, but of course all that takes time and effort and many people don't have access to so many stores and have the time to kill. I've been pretty lax about it lately, but it's definitely possible to go back, it's just adaptation and planning. We blow way more money on food than we should, just because of getting lazy.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

$6 gas in California. Yes, I can see that happening.

Yesterday in LA County, gas ranged from 4.15 to 5.49 a gallon, depending upon where in the county you were. We were on our way to a sports tournament to watch some games in Orange County, where they varied - weren't quite so high.

For every gallon we buy in California, there are additional state and local taxes to boot. When it hits $6 bucks, it's going to be ugly. Our mass transit is pretty terrible in my neck of the woods. I can ride a bike to work or walk - I am close enough to do so. However, loads of people bought a house an hour or more from where they work (to someplace they could afford) and those people are going to be hit the hardest.

Milk prices went up a bunch last month. The costs do get passed down to the consumer and we may not realize it at first.

longprime · Guru

Best thing that can happen is for gas/oil prices to rise.

Prima is correct. Our economy is too closely tied to oil.

Higher oil prices will force us to change to other energy sources and utilization. My mother's house (where I am staying as caregiver) is heated with oil on a 50 year old furnance. In 2008, I had to install a heatpump (without benefit of tax credit) with backup heating with wood and teritary heat by the oil furnance.

Solar water heating should be more prevalent.

We should also invade and annex Canada. evileye

john doe · Guru

I didn't see these same republicans blaming Bush when oil hit $147 a barrel.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Pima, I already said I was paying for it through food prices.

pima · Guru

One other thing, in O's defense, people forget why 1 reason gas prices are increasing which he has absolutely no control over. China and India. These 2 countries are moving into the 21st century and their demand is very high compared to even 10 yrs ago. The way economics in a global economy works is the same as small town USA. Supply and demand.

pima · Guru

romanig, don't fool yourself you too are paying for it. Go to the grocery store and check out how much a gallon of milk costs. Milk in our area where gas is @3.60 has risen about 20% already. 3 months ago it was 2.79, now it is 3.39. The rise in gas will be passed down to the consumer. Kellogg's is not going to keep their prices the same and reduce their profits, just like the oil companies... they will pass it along to you. You will start seeing from morning news shows on how to stretch your money at the grocery store. It will be a daily subconscious reminder that everything costs more, and you have less money to spend. It will hurt consumer confidence.

I am betting that Cali will see $6+ by May 15th. Due to regulations, there are different processes for our gasoline in the winter and summer. That is one reason you see the spike @ May, because the plants are changing over to summer. I can't remember for sure, but I believe the summer regs require that an additive is placed in to the gasoline.

Yes, we as Americans are spoiled when it comes to gas prices, I wouldn't be shocked if they are hitting 10-12 a gallon in Europe currently, but Europeans travel differently than we do as Americans. Every city even the small ones have a strong mass transit system. Amtrak here is like the post office, never turning a profit. In Europe it is not uncommon for people to "train it" for a weekend get away, and I mean if you live in the UK and go to France, you train it. Live in the UK and going to Belgium, you train it to the ferry, ferry it to Belgium and train it to Bruges or Brussels. For us, if you live in DC and want to go to NYC, you drive it and pays hundreds of dollars to park your car, because you just can't live on Amtrak's schedule!

This is going to be a problem for Obama as he comes into summer. It will force people to re-think their family vacations and he will be the reason independents get upset. If he opens up drilling, the prices will drop, but not by a lot because it takes yrs to get them on line. This will help the R's because they will say had he done it back in 08, we would be that much closer reducing our dependency on foreign oil. If he opens the reserves, it is only a quick fix for the summer and come fall when they have to change the plants back to winter crude, we will see a spike again.

That leaves only one option for him, open the reserves in Sept. and let us all suffer through the next 6 months.

pima · Guru

Sorry, my polish mind went right back to it isn't impacting me yet, and many people have that idea.

I do think you living in the motor city you will feel the pain soon enough. Automakers are just starting to come out of their hole, and typically when gas prices rise, car production changes. Which means lines dedicated to making an F-250 will feel it compared to the line making a cobalt. They can't re-engineer the production line fast enough, so they will shut it down for a few weeks to save costs.

In a town like that where many are employed by that industry it has a psychological impact, and that can spread like cancer.

Additionally, it will impact other industries. Supplies for a Suburban are not necessarily interchangeable with a Cruze. This will trickle down to the suppliers in another city, where their main customer is GM and the majority of the business is making that 1 part for the Suburban. They will have to lay off people, thousands of miles away from Detroit.

Our economy is intertwined in every aspect you can think of when it comes to oil. There are textiles believe it or not that are petroleum based. Our food/products are dependent on oil to have it delivered. The cable company that you are using will have their costs rise because all of those companies hire people to come to your home to repair it, and that costs money. Same with your electric company. Our school system in VA has changed about 50% of their buses over from diesel to hybrid. That will cost money. A few yrs ago schools were cancelling after school and field trip activities because it was too expensive to bus the kids.

Again there will always be a marker where the seesaw will tilt. Back in 04 NAR predicted the housing market would crash if a couple of things happened, interest rates(t-bills), unemployment and 70 a barrel for oil. they called the tri-fecta. The real down fall happened when we hit the 70 marker.

john doe,

The difference was the Houses were owned by Dems and refused to allow drilling. Bush could only open the reserves, which is exactly what he did. Why blame Bush as an R if the other party tied his hands? R's are not tying Obama's hands. Obama is tieing his own hands because he needs the D's to vote for him in 12, and drilling has always been a big no-no for his party.

Each president has a different make up when it comes to the House. In 06 -08 it was Pelosi and Reid who ran roughshod because they knew that whatever Bush wanted they could stop it in their tracks, and he would not have enough votes to veto it.

For someone who told me to take a history/civics lesson on how the govt works I find it interesting you forgot who truly was in power during those yrs.

-- Edited by pima on Sunday 26th of February 2012 09:26:44 AM

catahoula · Guru

His presidential campaign began in February 2007, and after a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he won his party's nomination. In the 2008 presidential election, he defeated Republican nominee John McCain, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. In October 2009, Obama was named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

As president, Obama signed economic stimulus legislation in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. Other domestic policy initiatives include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and the Budget Control Act of 2011. In foreign policy, he ended the war in Iraq, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, signed the New START arms control treaty with Russia, ordered US involvement in the 2011 Libya military intervention, and ordered the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. In April 2011, Obama declared his intention to seek re-election in the 2012 presidential election.

Nothing in there about Iran, lp, nor anything about deepwater moratoriums, come to think of it.

I'd say he owns gas prices, lock,stock, and barrel.

-- Edited by catahoula on Sunday 26th of February 2012 07:30:04 AM

-- Edited by catahoula on Sunday 26th of February 2012 07:30:38 AM

longprime · Guru

We are paying for a pseudo war with Iran.

W was too much of a wimp to attack Iran or take out Iranian physicists. And now we got an impatient Israel.

You should have bought that Prius 6 months ago when it was heavily discounted. evileye

john doe · Guru

There is nothing to do about the oil prices in the short term which will drive the price of gasoline, home heating oil and food up. Its also spiking on issues associated with Iran. Also arguably, speculators are driving the price up as they did in 2008. We need to use our abundant supply of natural gas.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

So what do we think? Is it really going to go up to $5 a gallon like the media is hyping up? Is $4+ per gallon going to be the norm? Realistically, will anything change if it is or are we all too dependent on gas to do anything about it other than gripe? Around where I'm from, there's nothing anyone can do. There is NO public transportation in most of Michigan and the weather is too bad for much of the year to bike and such. Everything is too far away to walk.

To be completely honest, high gas prices are the norm to me. Very few times since I've been a driver has gas been below $2 a gallon and low $3 seems to be the norm. When I go abroad, $3 seems dirt cheap. Luckily, I only have to fill up my gas tank every 3 weeks or so and it's only a 10 gallon tank so I definitely am not feeling the pinch too much directly. Gas rarely costs me more than $15/week even when gas prices are over $4 a gallon and I could dramatically cut that down if I wanted to, but I'd rather pay the extra money than ice my knee every day. As a pretty cash-strapped college student though, food prices are killer- which I believe is at least partially because of the increase in fuel. It's at the point where it's damn near cheaper to get carry out than go grocery shopping because I'm cooking for one and take out can generally last me a few days. I know a few places where I can get take out for $5-10 that will last me a few days. During the summer, it's not nearly as bad because I can get very cheap food at farmer's markets, but that's not a possibility for a large part of the year.

So what do we think? Should politicians keep pretending like there's some way that the prices are going to go down or should they focus their efforts more on making the fuel we do have go further (alternative fuel, MPG standards, better public transportation, etc)? Or IS there anything politicans can realistically do to bring down gas prices? I have a much different perspective on this being from the Motor City area (where we live and die by our cars and have some of the worst roads in the country... wonderful combination) which is why I'm curious about other perspectives.