Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What we need is much more efficient vehicles. Only those who have a legit need for a gas guzzling vehicle should be driving one. 16 mpg SUV's are obscene.
I agree that higher prices will make us reduce OUR consumption....WHICH IT HAS....our consumption in the usa the past few months has been REDUCED GREATLY......but the prices of gasoline and oil and has STILL NOT come down in price...even with less demand from us....????
Do you really think that everyone in the usa could even FIT in all the cities that we have...? Would you really want us all to be all rounded up in one place? Do you really think that this growth outside of cities with businesses and individuals really hurt us instead of being one of the major contributors to the gdp growth of the USA?
The price of crude has shot up because of huge increases in demand, thanks to the exploding economies of India and China.
The reality is that 77% of the world's oil reserves are exclusively controlled by foreign national oil companies (NOCs). By contrast, Lukoil controls 1.21%, Exxon-Mobil controls 0.62%, and Chevron controls 0.59%. In total, independent oil companies control about 6% of the known reserves. That's far from a monopoly, and would make it pretty difficult to price gauge.
But just for fun, what sort of profit is US big oil turning? As an industry, 8.3%. Of course, keeping that same profit percentage as input costs rise results in higher profits from a nominal standpoint. So yes, the companies now turn 30 cents a gallon in profit instead of 10 cents a gallon.
How does 8.3% compare? The beverage and tobacco industry turns 21.6%. Pharmaceuticals? 18.8%. Computers? 14.5% Even the apparel industry turns 8.5%! How unreasonable is 8.3%??
Furthermore, who owns these huge profits from independent oil companies? Well, as you may know, shares of public companies can be bought and sold by all Americans! The oil industry is no different - 14% are held in IRAs, 23% by individual investors, 27% in pension plans, 29.5% in mutual funds and 5% is held by other institutional investors.
Those greedy corporate insiders? 1.5%
It's the demand, stupid!
A lot of it is just inflation. There are more dollars in circulation. This is why it's not just oil, it's copper, nickel, steel, etc. too. Adjust for inflation, and we are paying the same amount we were in 1950.
Also, we don't know where prices would be if everyone stubbornly continued their driving habits. You may be convinced that conservation did nothing, but in an alternate universe with no conservation, we are all paying $8/gallon for gas--if we can get it!
Well, it's not about cramming everyone into a New York lifestyle, with highrise apartments. In fact, New Urbanist building codes actually forbid buildings over a certain height. Think of the old part of your nearest small/medium town, the part built before WWII. Or for larger cities, think of Paris. That's more like it.
Keep in mind, there is nothing actually "new" about allowing builders to put apartments on top of retail, for example. This is how we've done towns for thousands of years. It puts workers closer to work and shopping. Not that apartment living is necessary, mind you. There's plenty of free-standing houses in classical town planning. It's just that apartments/retail/office space are utilized much less stupidly.
A family of four can get by with one car, instead of four cars. This in turn frees up parking, for even more space savings, without being claustrophobic; and the shorter distances make mass transit and electric cars viable. Sure, we can talk about GDP, but when so much income goes towards car expenses, which many people tolerate only grudgingly, can we really say we're better off?
Anyway, I don't want to force anyone into anything; I simply want to let the free market do it's thing. If you want to live in isolated housing pods and drive to strip malls, I don't care, as long as it isn't subsidized and as long as your building style isn't mandated by government. That's not the case, currently.
The whole electric car thing is a joke. These cars are not more energy efficient, they are less efficient, they just change the source from the pump to the power plant. You still have to generate the power to charge the batteries. If the power plant is burning oil, and the loss through transmission is over 50% (which it is), this is a big looser.
On a certain level, I agree, mostly with what I bolded. But who's going to be telling me I don't have a legit need for an SUV? Or better yet, who's going to be telling me I can't own one if I want?
Hybrid batteries are nickel/lithium and are recycled.
Look into the process used to make them. It is very hard on the environment. And also look into the term "recycled", you will see that this means only a part of the material is actually reclaimed - the rest must be disposed of. Hybrid's are a "feel good" phenomena which in fact are bad for the environment.
I don't where you got this idea, but it's incorrect. Battery (or, ultracapacitors, potentially...) powered electric cars are the most energy-efficient cars per mile, hands down. That's why an electric car company like Tesla can claim 135 mpg equivalence, even though it's a sports car. Popular Mechanics did a survey of future-tech cars, and not surprisingly, battery EV's are the cheapest per mile. Second was CNG powered cars. Then diesel, then gasoline. Hydrogen was dead last.
The industrial turbine that generates electricity will typically be 40%~60% efficient, compared to a gasoline engine's 25% (and that 25% is at a very narrow peak efficiency range, usually wherever the engine produces peak horsepower. So unless you drive hard/coast, drive hard/coast...you'll never see that 25%). Then the power goes through the grid, where it loses a lot less than 50%. There's a little bit of loss charging the battery, and another loss turning battery power into mechanical power, (10%~15% each iirc), but those are both very minor. Plus, you recapture braking energy. Eventually, EV's will not even have mechanical brakes. Or differentials. Or transmissions, or clutches, or leaking fluids.
Hybrids are potentially a net gain, although currently the payoff isn't short enough to really grab consumers. As gas gets more expensive, it will make more and more sense. Most all modern locomotives are now diesel-electric, because that is the ultimate in efficiency. (drawing power from overhead lines would be the best, but those type of infrastructure upgrades mean more property taxes for the railroads). Of course railroads' time horizon is a lot longer term than most consumers, so it's not surprising that it hasn't quite caught on yet.
The only solution is to find an alternative energy source.
I was talking about purely electric cars, not hybrids. Hybrids are efficient, but current battery technology is not environmentally sound.
I think you underestimate the loss through the grid. While the main line transmission is efficient, the final path transmission usually is not. By the time you get done adding it all up, it takes about 2W of power to deliver 1W to the typical customer.
I was talking about purely electric cars, not hybrids. Hybrids are efficient, but current battery technology is not environmentally sound.
I think you underestimate the loss through the grid. While the main line transmission is efficient, the final path transmission usually is not. By the time you get done adding it all up, it takes about 2W of power to deliver 1W to the typical customer.
Yes Hybrids are efficient. They just aren't environmentally sound.
Flywheels are even more efficient - however having spun up flywheels in every car would present a very serious safety hazard. They have been used quite successfully in buses but containment issues make them impractical for cars.
Again, I have to disagree. We cannot pin our hopes on some Buck Rogers whizbang technology. We will almost certainly have to scrap our building codes, and reduce the distances we drive. That, plus nuclear power, will allow us to preserve some semblance of civilization.
For more reading, any of James Kunstler's books will explain the history of how we got here and specifically why our current model sucks so bad, or this one for something with more illustrations. Or just check out DPZ's website.
DEMAND is driving gas prices
It's not necessarily the fault of the admin. Congress as a whole has been irresponsible, and the out of control spending requires more money to be printed, especially during this budget deficit.
The massive debt in this country is being "fixed" by simply printing more money. The government can always print its way out of debt, at the cost of the middle class being crushed by loss of purchasing power.
Either they hyperinflate, or they deflate. Either way, the middle class gets screwed. They can't necessarily deflate right now, as it would cause the debt cost to skyrocket.
We're a consumer nation, and we're encouraged to spend, spend, spend...all the time. The Fed is keeping debt cheap right now so that borrowing is encouraged. Basically, the banks are being bailed out at the expense of the taxpayer, because the bankers are taking care of their own.
Someone else, feel free to expound or disagree.
It does make sense to me that just printing more money to cover Congress's Deficit and the President's Budget would devalue the Dollar... ty for explaining this!
