Gasoline to cost $10 a gallon in US soon?
Translating this price into dollars and cents at the gas pump, one of our forecasters, the chairman of Houston-based Dune Energy, Alan Gaines, sees gas rising to $7-$8 a gallon. The other, a commodities tracker at Weiss Research in Jupiter, Fla., Sean Brodrick, projects a range of $8 to $10 a gallon.LinkWhile $7-$10 a gallon would be ground-breaking in America, these prices would not be trendsetting internationally. For example, European drivers are already shelling out $9 a gallon (which includes a $2-a-gallon tax).
Early last year, with a barrel of oil trading in the low $50s and gasoline nationally selling in a range of $2.30 to $2.50 a gallon, Mr. Gaines — in an impressive display of crystal ball gazing — accurately predicted oil was $100-bound and that gasoline would follow suit by reaching $4 a gallon.
His latest prediction of $200 oil is open to question, since it would undoubtedly create considerable global economic distress. Further, just about every energy expert I talk to cautions me to expect a sizable pullback in oil prices, maybe to between $50 and $70 a barrel, especially if there's a global economic slowdown.
While Mr. Gaines thinks there could be a temporary decline in the oil price, he's convinced an overall uptrend is unstoppable. In fact, he thinks his $200 forecast could be conservative, and that perhaps $250 could be reached. His reasoning: a combination of shrinking supply and increasing demand, especially from China, India, and America.
On Cape Cod, we're already paying $3.60 for gas, which hasn't been seen since the freshly-after-Katrina days.
If only we had a public transportation system like the ones in Europe.
I live in TX by the way.
The next president, whoever it may be, would be very wise to create some kind of Apollo-program-styled emergency group to fix this: electric cars, better public transport, natural gas vehicles, etc.
One hundred new oil wells aren't going to fix the problem, especially now that China is drinking from the same straw as the rest of us.
Clearly Bush, even if he weren't a lame duck, would prefer to just twiddle his thumbs a la Herbert Hoover, either because he WANTS his oil industry buddies to be able to buy private islands, or because he thinks "the market will eventually correct itself."
Al Gore where are you?
I just checked, in Sweden we pay (about) 12.70 swedish kronor for one liter of gasoline. Plugging this into Google's excellent calculator/unit converter gives this:
12.70 SEK/liter in USD/gallon
Almost exactly 8 dollars/gallon. You Americans are wimps :)
Here in Southern California, gas is already $3.90 for 87 octane. The other two grades are both over $4.00 a gallon. We will hit $5 easily this summer.
@mingo:
If only the public transportation was that good. Before I left the UK a couple of years ago, it would have taken me double the length of time and cost 25% more to take the 12 mile trip to work on public transport than by driving. So, I was getting screwed on the price and seeing nothing for it. I guess it's even worse now, though I don't know since I emigrated to Spain few years ago (where the public transport is admittedly a lot cheaper).
Various places I've seen claim that if we were to stop consuming OPEC oil, the American economy would go to the toilet because OPEC members would pull their money out of American banks.
Whether or not that would really happen, I don't know; something, somewhere has to give, though.
Looking forward to my future electric car! Provided we can afford anything other than Burros in America, though. Heh.
here in minneapolis, we used to have an extensive electric train system.
but thanks to the fine folks at GM, we now have fossil fueled buses and only one train line.
@ Oskar -
I know you were being flip, but there are a few points to consider.
First off, Sweden is a tiny little country compared to the US. Combined with the lack of a viable public transport infrastructure (unlike Sweden), the price of gas in the US begins to make more sense.
Now, should the US have built public transportation to offset this? Yes and no.
No because until recently, it was simply not worth it - gas was inexpensive enough and population density was low enough that investment into a large public transportation would not have been worth the returns in most of the country (urban centers are an exception, and most urban areas have some form of decent public transportation system anyway).
Yes because it was lacking in foresight not to have seen this day coming. But hey, better late than never etc.
If high gas prices are coming, then I say Bring It On. I live in L.A. and I get around just fine with my bicycle and the Metro system. People need to demand better public transportation. The less stinky cars on the road the better!
I used to be into the positive, forward-thinking, "the future is today" type thing. Where science and technology will unite mankind and we can use our combined human knowledge to solve problems. Maybe create some kind of technological singularity and expand into the universe beyond our planet, beyond our galaxy, into total universal diffusion or something equally Roddenberry-esque... Y'know, riding a soliton wave hand-in-hand into tomorrow.
However, seeing as we've created an entire society based on a single dangerous substance (petroleum) which can't be replenished... we seem to have waited (as a nation, as all of humankind) too long to do anything real about it. Next thing you know, shipping costs increase, food and other necessities can no longer be easily accessed, people get hungry, people get edgy, power plants can't keep the lights on, people get angry, people get thirsty, people get... 457 AD.
It's hard to look towards the future with that nasty Hubbert Peak Theory blocking all the sunlight.
According to the Google Calculator, we are paying $5.85 per gallon in most gas stations, here in Brasília. Considering Brazil's relatively low income compared to US and Sweden's, I declare both Americans and Swedish wimps. ;)
The forecasters didn't even forecast a timeline for this increase? It's pretty obvious that the prices are going to keep increasing as supply wanes and demand increases. No great prediction there IMO.
The biggest difference between Europe and America, specifically Southern California, is that we drive over 300 miles(483 kilometers) per week. Very few European commuters and even many Americans don't have to drive anywhere near that kind of distance in that short a time frame. What makes it worse here in SoCal is the almost complete lack of a public transit system and systemic unwillingness to pay for one. Finally, in SoCal's case your dealing with an area thats 4850 square miles (12561 square. km) that would need to be covered by some kind transit and a project of that scale would cost more than even our huge economy could handle even if the solution took a generation to complete.
The hydrocarbons have come home to roost. I've been advocating higher gas prices for years because it's the only thing that will get Americans out of our Hummers, Escalades and monster trucks. And off the road. It's quite common in Southern California to drive 100+ miles every day. A little bit of common sense about running errands would easily cut that in half. Somehow I manage to only need gas once a month. It's not rocket science.
Sadly, I think this could happen easily with our unchecked inflation. If we in the US paid $9 a gallon for gas AND got health care, 5 weeks minimum vacation, and affordable college there would be less to be tweaked about.
Time to buy a motorcycle?
Also, prepare for increasing pressure to drill in Alaska, etc.
Well, Europe did have the advantage of being mostly destroyed about 60 years ago, so they go to rebuild a lot of it from scratch. I imagine that if the US had been bombed to hell back then that the Germans would've rebuilt it with a pretty decent public transportation infrastructure, too. Oh, well.
If you're in Texas, make sure your representatives and senators are working to add light rail up the median of all new highways. And when they fix up old highways they need to do it, too. We've already got train tracks between all the major cities, what we need is the intra city stuff.
In DFW, we need a rail that goes from Lockheed (and Ridgmar Mall) in the west, to the State Fair or into Mesquite in the east. And from UNT in the north to UTA and Parks Mall in the South. There need to be a train that goes to DFW Airport, right now you go to centerpoint then bus in. And to Six Flags, Wet N Wild, Arlington Stadium, and whatever the new Cowboys stadium is, and UTA in Arlington.
It's be awesome to live in Fort Worth, work in Dallas, and in the summer met the other spouse and kids at Six Flags or Wet N Wild, or catch a Rangers game, or the Cowboys I guess, and then head back home after that is over all with out _needing_ a car. You can't do that now.
So push for rail lines to go down 30, 35, 635, 20, 121, 183, 820, & 75.
Then if it does go up to $10 a gallon who'll care?
Curios coincidence: a major organizer in my local biodiesel co-op has put out for gathering waste oil, be it for conversion into biodiesel or for other vehicular uses. He cited the rise of the cost of oil to $119/bbl, but perhaps he saw this through some other source. Or just knows what's coming.
as for US public transport, could it handle the additional passenger load? I don't know how it is in other US cities, but in Chicago we've been barely maintaining the systems let alone doing any serious improvement/expansion.
Though the 'L' had some station re-builds and one of the local commuter lines has extended to the boonies, but the whole state of Illinois has been witness to repeated transit money wars and moronic policymaking. Our governor's latest? Giving seniors free rides on already under-funded mass transit. Good thinking, Rod.
Oh, and we're vying for the 2016 Olympics.
The US should have been working on high-speed rail and a suburban underground system (and a lot of other at-home necessities) instead of starting a war we can't afford.
I, for one, weep tears of rage thanks to our chuckleheaded overlords.
@Metlin
The high price of gas in Sweden is mostly due to taxes, we tax the hell out of our pumps.
I want to correct one thing you said: Sweden is NOT a tiny country. We have a tiny population, but our surface area is quite large. The population density in Sweden is 20/km², in the US it's 31/km². Our surface area is quite a bit larger than Germany's (slightly larger than California), while they have a population nine times larger than us.
Added to that, Sweden has a very "inefficient" shape, it's rather long, meaning that if you want to from north to south, it's like traveling from London to Rome.
That's staggering problem for public transportation to solve. Much harder than most US states. So don't go around saying "Oh, well, it's not the same in Sweden, they're tiny!". We're few, but we ain't tiny.
In Detroit we're just going to turn the homeless into biofuel. We're very green in this part of the country.
Is anyone here familiar with the Chrysler Turbine Car? It was made in 1963, I think, and as opposed to a regular old gasoline engine (300 moving parts, dangerous exhaust, inefficient and fuel limited) it was powered by a STUNNING turbine (read: jet) engine. The engine had only 60 moving parts, it ran on ANYTHING that burned (gas, ethanol, jet fuel, vegetable oil, tequila... you name it) and it's exhaust contained Nitrogen Oxides, which were a problem in the 60s, but now could probably be fed back into the engine and re-used like a NOS system in a modern day muscle car.
Why don't we start using THOSE in cars. The ultimate hybrid.
according to an NPR article about $89/barrel of the current oil price is based on actual demand. Everything beyond that is the result of speculators in the commodities market driving the price up to turn a profit.
All those people who invested heavily in the real estate market needed a new place to put their cash when that market collapsed. Oil speculation was the new hot ticket.
When oil went over $100 for the first time, it wasn't because of demand, it was because some trader wanted to be the first one to buy for over $100/barrel.
This is why OPEC hasn't increased production, they are producing enough oil to meet demand, but people are speculating on it and jacking up prices anyway.
Yes we need to develop technology to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, however we also *really* need to get rid of the system that allows people to speculate on oil pricing and line their pockets at the expense of everyone else.
While I personally feel that non-petrol is the way to go an item worth a quick read on the American oil "crisis".
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/gull_island_oil.html
And if you've got an hour and 15 to spare:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
It is a little of sinister-overlordly, but just something to think about while you build your shelter and fill it up with ammo, canned foods and drinking water. :)
Well if we want to pay European prices for gas, the US could just put European level tax on it....
@ Gandalf23:
I'm also in DFW, and there is a new dart line being built parallel to 35. It will make love field accessible, and begin the trek north and west.
http://www.dart.org/about/expansion/greenline.asp
Unfortunately, most of the midcities, lewisville, and denton have not paid to be part of DART. I think it's only a matter of time.
The in-ability for people to see the "big picture" really pisses me off.
@Gainclone
The Nitrogen Oxides it produced are not the same as Nitrous Oxide (N20).
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html
has a bunch of info on the turbine cars, including a section at the end on the feasibility of making a turbine car today.
High fuel consumption at idle & in general is one of the biggest drawbacks. As such trying to get better economy out of one isn't likely to happen.
They are great engines in certain applications, but they are far from being the magic bullet solution.
Won't somebody think of the 3rd world?
In Panama we are paying $3.90 like someplaces in the US, but a $10 would certainly push us to a Chaos previously unknown here, no doubt; there's no way our economy can handle such thing.
When oil went over $100 for the first time, it wasn't because of demand, it was because some trader wanted to be the first one to buy for over $100/barrel.
The news analysts called it a fluke. A month later it's just under $120. Maybe I'll just ride a sandworm to work today.
Gainclone:
The NOx you're thinking of is not N20, but N02, which is normally broken down partially by catalytic converters in IC engines.
Economics 101:
Increase in demand = Increase in price.
Decrease in demand = Decrease in price.
As long as my neighbor and many others insist on using their Ford F-350s as commuter vehicles, which gets about 10 miles per gallon, demand will continue to increase and we will continue to see higher prices.
I think it is lost on many that those who own the big vehicles are driving up prices for everyone else.
Oh,I suspect "Gull Island" will on the lips of many in the coming months. How long does it take to develop an oil field and build a pipeline? Long enough to get them used to say $20 a gallon?
@Antinous
The fact it has reached $120/barrel does not negate my earlier statements. If anything the fact that oil demand has not risen noticeably in the months since it hit $100/barrel and it is now at $120/barrel seem to lend weight to the claim that it is speculators and not true demand that is driving up prices.
That plus the record profits from oil companies. If oil was truly so expensive to acquire & refine now vs a few years ago the oil companies would be making the same profits they were back then. Instead they are making insanely higher profits now that the cost of oil & gas has gone up.
Oh, and the US government still subsidizes the oil industry.
Petrol in Ireland is 120.7 cent a litre... (which, roughly converted is about $7.15 a US gallon). But, that being said, people don't find the petrol inherently expensive here. The reason for this is not so much how much the petrol costs a litre, but rather how many kilometres we get to the litre – we don't drive around in cars with 9 litre V10 engines!!! We drive sensible cars. The price of petrol should therefore become less relevant to Americans, as they cop on to themselves and buy more efficient cars. The Citroën C2 that I have does 70mpg! Try getting worked up putting 40 euro worth into the tank every 2.5 months – it's impossible!
I'm from Michigan, with a current unemployment rate of 7.2% and growing daily. What concerns me most is what's going to happen if gas prices go higher than our state's current minimum wage (currently $7.15.) The unemployed will stay unemployed for not being able to travel across town in under two hours, and those who have had to take a minimum wage job will have a higher percent of their wages go to gas instead of things like health insurance (which is another crisis here altogether.)
Wow, I sure am a wimp for fearing gas prices will contribute to my state's ultimate economical collapse.
edit: @Jeff, I got so worked up over my post it was kind of a relief to hear a joke about Detroit :)
While a higher consumer gas price would be a positive thing in the US, it'd be terrible for industry (which isn't abusing fossil fuels).
People living in the suburbs should be financial encouraged to either work there or move, but there's really nothing we can do about transporting goods east/west. Whether by train or by truck, it gets there by dead dinosaurs, and there's not much we can do about that. Further, the food we eat is essentially biologically processed oil.
If we run out of viable oil, we're fucked as a species, far more than we would be under even the most pessimistic global warming predictions. We *need* to develop an efficient biofuel production method that doesn't require foodstock as an input.
Here in San Francisco, with the highest average gas prices in the US, I paid $3.97 yesterday for 89 octane in my neighborhood. If I had filled up near the highway, it would have cost me $4.17/gallon. While we don't drive very often, it still hurts. And unfortunately the cost of gas won't deter those that decide to commute in their cars to Silicon Valley instead of taking the train. Ugh.
Another little tidbit from NPR: The supply vs demand problem is a myth.
World-wide production vs consumption is up (around 3% vs 2.7% growth, IIRC), and US production vs consumption is up (around 3% vs 2.3%).
Three major possibilities emerge from this data: speculative trading is causing price increases, corporate greed is causing price increases, or that as refineries approach 100% capacity, production costs rise exponentially.
we need to stop sucking at the Oil Companies teat.
Biofuel is not the answer it just makes food more expensive and makes the destruction of the rain forests even more likely
They need to get on with biomass fuel then they can convert the green bits of plants into fuel we will have it cracked nd fck th rbs
Also where is my flying car while they are at it ?
fuck the Arabs? Someone has not been paying attention
What we need is to get rid of zoning. Residential zones, industrial zones, light business zones. Bah, scrap them all.
When my parents neighborhood was built in the 20s they didn't have that. They are within walking distance of several small stores, which back in the day were butchers and bakers and grocers, and now are dry cleaners and frame shops and antique stores. Until very recently there were three grocery stores in walking distance. Two became Walgreens or Ekkerds (or whatever they call themselves now) the other went away, but a Super Target went up a few years ago and is just out of walking distance.
Where I live now was built in the late 60s/early 70s. It was Zoned. There is a small strip of businesses along the highway, gas stations, some fast food, a Home Depot. But the closest grocery store is almost four miles away. It's three and change. And within the housing development area there are no commercial sites, so there is no place to put a donut shop or a taco place or a grocer or butcher. Because it's not zoned for that. Heck, since there was no shops or anything nearby, no place to walk too, at the time they didn't even build sidewalks. Recently they added sidewalks near the school, and along the main roads in, but it's like, why? Where are we going to walk too? And why are out tax dollars paying for this?
I really like the Montgomery Plaza near downtown Fort Worth. It's similar to the stuff I saw all over the middle east. Shops on the first two floors, then apartments above. But holy crap it was hard to get the zoning variances, and there seems to be some sort of bureaucratic holdup now to get people into the apartments. I think that simillar shops/apartments are going to go up across the street all along 7th.
We need the zoning to lighten up and we need for new developments to be built around a small commercial area. Ring the outside with shops, and then have a block or so of shops at the middle. So that people can walk to the butcher and can walk to the store. And not be forced to drive everywhere. Maybe tax breaks for certain businesses to be in there. And we need local places to sell local produce and fruit. There is not a farmers market anywhere closer to me than the one out by Ridgmar Mall, and that's over 20 miles away.
Drive around the older areas of the city and you'll see what I'm talking about. Like over by TCU, there are shops along Berry and University, then residences for the rest of the area. Till you drive in there and in the middle of all the residences will be a little one block area of shops. The Ace Hardware I go to is over in there, it's the closet one to me.
Of course there are tons of other reasons to get rid of zoning. I will not even get into how we couldn't add a music room to the front of my parents house (we'd enclose part of the porch) because we didn't have a grand piano. Or how we had to get a variance and go before all kinds of committees and crap and pay all kinds of fees just to rebuilt the porch where it had been for 80+ years. (It was built, in 1922, two feet from the property line Which! Is! Not! Done! as the new rules say it has to be five feet off, which would make it not match the house, which was also built two feet from the line!) Or how you can't have a 400 square foot car port in Fort Worth, but you can have a 400 square foot portacache (that's probably spelled wrong) which is the same damn thing but sounds better to the snobs on the un-elected, appointed, no-construction-experience-needed zoning board. Gah! But I'll not go into all that.
"I say Bring It On. I live in L.A. and I get around just fine with my bicycle and the Metro system."
=========
Bring it on? No thanks. Fuel costs create higher transportation costs which result in higher-priced food, products, bus fare and air fare. I hardly drive my car. It sits in my driveway for days at a time without use. I rely mainly on my bicycle and my shoes these days, but I'm not kidding myself by thinking that high fuel prices can't affect me in other ways.
Someone has not been paying attention
I'm sure that it was Freudian.
@ Takuan: Yeah, exactly. I guess the underlying reason I'm so bitter about this is that I feel like I'm getting personally stolen from by the exact type of people in the documentary "The Smartest Guys in the Room."
What we need is to get rid of zoning. Residential zones, industrial zones, light business zones. Bah, scrap them all.
Then you won't mind the state prison that backs up to your house or the liquor store next to the junior high. Strip clubs make nice next-door neighbors. Churches are the worst. The problem isn't zoning. It's bad zoning. San Francisco has very strict zoning and building codes, but you can walk to the grocery store, PO, etc. from almost any residence in the City. Good zoning preserves quality of life.
I think that megastores are a bigger part of the problem. Am I going to drive thirty miles round trip to Home Depot to save ten bucks? Mega stores usually go where they can fit, which means the edge of nowhere. Then other megastores fill in around them. They drive small, local stores out of business and then you have to shop there. Who's willing to pay higher prices to shop small, local stores?
I believed it was a supply and demand thing when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, but I haven't seen anything to indicate the scarcity of oil has suddenly increased, and economic hardship creates LESS demand not more. Based on what I'm aware of at least, somebody is gaming the system. And I'm curious to know how this will affect the oil industry long term. It's NOT going away soon, we don't and won't have the tech to ship stuff long distances by any other means anytime soon. But high cost of oil is kind of writing its own obituary. The high cost of it spurs interest in increased efficiency and research into outright replacements for it. I'm sure the coal industry is absolutely salivating at the thought of selling us the 'gas' in our cars via the electric utilities. If large format battery technology gets appreciably cheaper, lots of things are going to get upended.
Oil prices are unlikely to remain at current price levels for long. Changes in utilization and increases in production will moderate prices in the next year or so. When people say, "Well if it's this high now, imagine what it'll be in the summer" they are missing the point that with gas at $4 - $5 per some weird measure of volume, a lot of people aren't going to be doing any more driving than necessary.
Humans are adaptable animals, and if given both motive and opportunity they will invent their way out of the end of oil. High prices are motive. Well-regulated markets and available investment capital and good education are opportunity.
There are a lot of people who are aware of the opportunities ahead.
I'm talking to some high-school kids tomorrow who've built a Stirling engine in shop class, including a dual-axis solar tracker to power it. A lot of people are doing things like this, motivated by the Standard Market Offer program in Ontario that encourages individuals to sell renewable power back to the grid. It encourages people to build clean capacity, and while rates will eventually fall to meet the rising rates of non-renewables, once clean capacity is installed it will keep on producing with relatively little maintenance.
There are days when I think we will see the end of oil without too much fuss, if some numbnuts doesn't go to war over it. O wait...
Yet more ammo for the 'we need to get off oil as soon as possible' debate. Running a huge chunk of the global economy on one resource is stupid in the extreme, yet governments don't seem to be doing much about it. They could invest a lot more than they are in alternative energy resource - as could the oil companies if they weren't so interested in profits. What if they halved the shareholder dividends and spent all that on renewables, hmm?
Sure oil companies are hugely vested in the oil industry, but they're incredibly rich so they could, if they seriously invested in it, become the giants of the future energy technologies.
BP like to make you think they're doing that, but I bet they could do more. A shame the stock markets demand profit profit growth growth above investment to ensure you've got an industry to be in next century.
Watch the Road Warrior again; the intro seems to be even more timely now than when it came out. It gave me chills when I watched it a few months ago.
@ Oskar
Let's talk scale, shall we? I'm typing this from Dallas, Texas. Wikipedia tells me that the area of Sweden is 173,732 sq mi. It also tells me that the area of Texas is 268,820 sq mi. The area of the US, on the other hand, is 3,794,066 sq mi. That's 3 million, in case you'd missed. I could argue on, but I'll leave it at that.
Secondly, you use population density as a big magic number. Here's the deal. Population density doesn't mean jack. If most of your population lives in the urban areas, you can provide public transportation to just those areas and satisfy a large portion of your population. If you have most of your population scattered in the country, suburbs and in urban sprawls, then the amount of effort that it takes to cater to your population is much higher.
Talk to me about coverage versus population, and we'll get somewhere.
And then, if you took a collection of all possible routes within Sweden and within Texas and plotted a graph, you'll realize that the number of routes within the US is much, much higher (due to the fact that the population is spread out) than in Sweden. Even significantly high taxes will have trouble sustaining that level of roads or public transportation.
I mean, if you must, compare apples to apples. Compare Sweden with Germany or something and feel all nice and happy, but comparing the US with Sweden is an exercise in futility.
Countries don't scale that way, especially not a large and diverse one like the US.
In the long run high gas prices would create the kind of development I would love to see -- walkable, dense, with plenty of public transit options.
In the short run, I live a 10-minute drive away from the closest grocery store, and that's just how it is in the entire area I live. Public transportation is not feasible here. Taking the bus from my house to campus would take at least an hour, and would require me to walk half a mile along a curvy, hilly, high-speed road with no sidewalk or shoulder, to even get to the stop -- it's just not feasible. In the short run, $10/gallon gas would break me. I might not make it to the long run.
Live closer together. Ride a bicycle. Buy a smaller car or none at all.
I think the high oil price is a good thing; it makes the development of alternatives more economically viable.
Besides, the problem here is not lack of primary energy sources -- the sun provides more yottawatts than we'll ever need -- the problem is capture, distribution and storage. Where's our Shipstone?
@ Agent 86
Or the OPEC is being a cartel and is profiteering from the increased oil prices, which drives up speculation.I'd tell you what to do about that, but then I guess I'll be stereotyped and branded, especially on BB. So, I'll refrain.
I'll give you a clue, though - look up the list of countries that belong to OPEC.
"The price of petrol should therefore become less relevant to Americans, as they cop on to themselves and buy more efficient cars. The Citroën C2 that I have does 70mpg! Try getting worked up putting 40 euro worth into the tank every 2.5 months – it's impossible!"
I see that a lot, or similar, but the math just does not work out.
My truck is paid for. I have no car payment. It's a 1993 Ford F150. It's 16 miles to drive to work along the freeway. It's a little less to go the back roads, but that way takes more gas because of all the red lights and stop signs. I get about 16 mpg. So it costs me a gallon of gas to get to work and a gallon to get back home. That works out to about 8,000 miles a year to get to work and back, or $3000 worth of gas at $4 per gallon.
I can't afford a home near the office. And there are no jobs in my field near where I live. :(
Buying a better gas mileage car is not an option at this point. It just does not work out financially. First of all, I need a truck. I could get by with a smaller one, and a trailer (which would be an additional cost, and would require yearly maintenance and fees and insurance, not to mention where would I store it?), but it's just so convenient to have a full eight foot bed. I prefer to be able to close the tailgate when I've got a load of plywood or sheetrock or even 2x4s. Some of the little trucks you can't even get a full sheet of plywood inside them. But like I said, I could probably get by with a little Toyota Tacoma or Ford Ranger, something like that.
Second, yes, I'd be paying less at the pump, but the car payment would be a lot more (since it's zero now). I'd need to get a relatively new car to get a big increase in gas mileage, which means not only would it be more expensive to purchase, but insurance costs would go up. I don't have theft insurance on my Ford now, but if I get a loan I'd be required to do so, for example. Also I have the minimum of liability insurance I can carry by law, again if I borrow money to get a newer car they'd require a higher amount of liability, and probably would require I carry uninsured motorist insurance, in case I'm hit by someone who does not have insurance.
And maintenance fees are not that different. A newer car will still need it's oil changed, and will need brakes occasionally, and a tune up once a year and the alignment fixed at least once a year, and every now and then it'll need tires. And then there are the "Oh Shit!" costs, the catastrophic failure of some part or another. those happen to newer cars, too. So we're realistically at a wash there.
Gas prices would be cheaper. Car payment goes waaay up. Insurance goes waaay up. Maintenance costs are roughly the same. So how am I saving money by getting a more fuel efficient car? (and I'm not "saving the environment" by getting rid of my truck, because it will not go into a black hole somewhere, it'll be sold and driven by someone else.)
I did a spreadsheet on this a few weeks ago, let me see if I still have it...well, I can't find it right now, but let's think about it. If the MPG doubles to 32mpg, then my fuel costs would go down from $3,000 to $1,500. But, a car or truck that gets 32 mpg is probably going to cost more than $1,500 a year to buy, so my existing truck "wins" . If the price of gas does go up to $10 per gallon, that' puts my yearly gas expenditure at...$7500 (assuming I don't bust out my moped or reduce drastically the non-work related driving). At that point it might be worth it to get a more fuel efficient truck, but again, it'd have to be at least 32 mpg, _and_ cost $3750 or less per year to purchase (including the increased insurance costs) for it to beat out my current truck.
Once I pay off my student loan and some other stuff, which should happen December of this year!, I'll run the numbers again. Who knows, maybe they'll come out with a Mr. Fusion by then. :)
$10 a gallon for gasoline wouldn't be as bad, if U.S. workers would be paid what they are worth. If the value of the U.S. $ drops, and the prices for consumer goods increase, shouldn't the wages, that the workers are paid, increase to scale? If the average U.S. worker is payed $14 an hour in 2005, his wage should almost be double in 2008, based on what his per-hour service is worth vs. the dollar value. The worker's quality has not diminished, so why has his earnings?
If the U.S. sees $10 a gallon for gasoline, given the current earning scale, it would devastate the general economy. It would be a great time to own a bicycle shop, though.
That's a good thing, and I wish gas tax could be increased to keep it up there. Instead of mileage requirements, let the market rule. Guarantee that this would lead to innovation in the market place.
...Y knw, n wll-plcd tctcl nk n th mddl f, sy, rn, wld gv th prpr mssg t ths rspnsbl fr ths bllsht - PC. thr th prc f brrl f l gs bck t $9.00 SD, r w'll kp lbbng nk wk ntl th mssg s rcvd n thr nd.
t tk th Jpns tw nks t gt t thrgh thr hds, nd ths wr n th 20KT rng. Cnsdrng hw hrd-hdd mst Mslm fntcs vr thr r, prdct t lst fr n th 3MT rng bfr sm mm rlzs tht t's bttr t prch pc thn fry...
ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and the rest of them don't give a damn whether the gasoline and diesel they sell you is derived from coal or petroleum, as long as they're making money on it. If they can make it from coal for less than the cost of making it from oil, they'll switch — and that price is somewhere short of $40 a barrel. The reason they haven't is that it requires a long-term capital investment, and they expect the oil bubble to burst and oil to drop back under $30 a barrel in the relatively short term.
Now, maybe all the decision-makers at all the big oil companies are fundamentally wrong on what's happening with oil, and we're not going to see a massive decline in oil prices in the reasonably near future. But if that's true, well, one of them is bound to figure it out eventually, and then the coal-to-liquids plants will get going.
And then the world's three largest coal producers — the U.S., India, and China — will be the world's major producers of gasoline and diesel.
It sounds from the various comments like returning Texas to Mexico might solve quite a few problems.
here Italy
8,2$ / Gallon
Darn it took me a loong time to get a account but as a dutch guy i just had to respond with a huuuuge smile on my face.
about time america starts paying normal prices
they consume 25 % of all the energy in this globe with a 8 % population.
Darn i love cars but i pay per liter whay you have to pay per gallon and still whinin about it.
So a big hahahaha to you "middleclass suburbans" with your big vans and suv's.
Hit the road jack and don't you come back no more no more.
Several notes:
1) Watch "The End of Suburbia" (you can of course find it on BitTorrent, but I'd recommend buying it to support the producers): http://endofsuburbia.com/
2) A lot of demand for gasoline is elastic, so we're seeing a measurable decline in freeway traffic right now.
3) Other uses of oil are not as elastic. Specifically, many places in the northern states use heating oil. If prices stay high, some folks are going to freeze come winter. To me it looks like pellet furnaces are your best bet if you can afford to install one.
It's very important that everyone remember his conversation. In about a year, when President McCain
is explaining why tactical nuclear weapons were unavoidable in stopping the Iran Menace, it will give context.
A few thoughts
@Michael R. Bernstien:
I saw the trailer for "The end of suburbia"
It looked interesting, and while I agree that rising fuel prices and overconsumption may indeed lead to the end of America's sprawled infrastructure, it did feel very alarmist and sensational.
This news really doesn't bother me.
I live in Brooklyn, so mass transit easily connects me to work, school, and most places I want to go, whenever I want to go there.
And during nice weather, everything is close enough together that I can just bike to where I want to go.
For the few exceptions, (like if I want go somewhere at 3am, or go somewhere not reachable by train), I just rent a zipcar.
Every major city in America used to have a public, zero-emissions, electric tram service, and was connected to the national rail infrastructure.
If someone really wanted to live outside of a major metro area, they had to pay for it.
I don't see why America can't go back to being like that.
Actually I really doubt we'll see coal/oil "coil" anytime soon. The Athabasca tarsands which are the test case for alternative oil production are running into huge problems in extraction and environmental degredation.
Turning any organic material into oil can be done, but the energy and environmental inputs render it prohibitively expensive (Alberta will run out fresh water before it runs out of oil for instance).
Throwing nukes in the middle east would only bring about China and India throwing nukes into the U.S.
The US doesn't get it's oil from the middle east, but from Canada, Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, Brazil etc...
The issue with Zoning in the US is that the "urb" mentality is so ingrained. It's easy to zone for ecodense, transit friendly neighbourhoods. But they don't make sense in all those bedroom communities that stretch out as far as the eye can see. It was the mania for a house which created some of the most depressingly sterile, soul killing exurbian dystopias, wrecked the american financial system, and allows the hyperconsumptive lifestyle.
The ultimate solution is to create a belt of land reserves around the urban areas and let them densify inside those zones. With that all the pre-conditions for intelligent, eco friendly, transit bases housing will be met.
the specific use of minimal yield "bunker busters" against a putative weapons program does not constitute "throwing nukes in the middle east". Especially when this is lost in the chaos of a conventional bombing campaign and most especially when the media is distracted with a generic 911 "atrocity".
This news really doesn't bother me.
I live in Brooklyn, so mass transit easily connects me to work, school, and most places I want to go, whenever I want to go there.
But how does your food get to you, my brother?
Problem solved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqf1yKxb9hI
"...and allows the hyperconsumptive lifestyle."
Every human society everywhere engages in some form of conspicuous consumption. Americans are just better at it than most.
We'll never see a human society that doesn't aspire to hyperconsumption. The best we can do is channel it into more sensible places, like charitable giving and what for lack of a better term I'll call charitable investment, rather than in the pure waste of SUVs and McMansions.
If everyone with adequacy issues were to compete to show how HUGE their donations to a local library or a distant village were, the world would be a better place. If on the other hand we were to make entirely unsustainable investments in trying to stamp out conspicuous consumption the world would be a vastly poorer place.
Consumption is partly a function of the amount of space you have. In places where there is no room and everyone is forced into smaller places, there amount that can be consumed is limited. Who will consume more goods? A four bedroom rancher 30 miles out of town, or a 1000 sqft 1 bedroom apartment?
Arrogant folks who think that more expensive gas is A-OK because they live in a city with great public transportation (really, that means only urban NY or Chicago in the USA) really are not thinking about our society as a whole?
Where does their food come from? Where do all the toys that they fill their apartments with comes from? What about the fuel that generates their electricity (and the electricity to power the trains).
Fact is, our whole national infrastructure has been built for the past 100 years based on inexpensive fossil fuels. Changing things to a more sustainable way of life is a 50 year project, and during the transition, things are not going to be very fun. The transition is going to affect all of us, whether we live in surburbia 50 miles from our jobs or whether our "commute" is a 5 minute subway ride.
We are all in this together.
gotta get a Peel P50!
just a general question: does anyone actually believe that the current situation where America (with 5% global pop.)consumes 20 to 25% global resources can be sustained much longer, much less extended to a huge new middle class in China and India? I think the party is over, the booze is gone, the food is gone, the carpet is ruined, the cops are already here and the Hells Angels just pulled up out back because they heard about the "free beer". Don't you?
Tik-tak,
Don't be so pessimistic. The world's going to end before we really fall to pieces!
There are only two constants in history: change and hope.
Death and taxes.
Comparing goods transport with one person driving a Hummer is not a legitimate argument. Water is also at a premium. It should go to farming before it goes to lawns.
Goods transport is just the tip of the enchilada, though. Richard Manning sez:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915
Urban living is far more environmentally friendly than rural or suburban living. Everyone has to eat, and the higher density of cities means that distribution of goods is more efficient there. There's real data on this--go look it up.
In general higher density = more environmentally friendly. So on average urban is better than suburban and suburban is better than rural, particularly given the massive impact on wildlife that rural humans have. I currently live within easy walking distance of a small town core, and my environmental footprint is the smallest it has been since I lived in LA, where I was the only Anglo who did not own a car.
In a sensible and sane future 90% of the human race will live in well-serviced urban areas, with relatively few oddballs out in the boonies tending the machines that take care of the protein and hydrocarbon ponds.
Oh yeah, and death is a kind of change, possibly curable, and taxes are one of the things we hope to avoid. In any case, taxes are an artefact of civilization. The Mehinaku for example don't pay taxes. Ergo, taxes are not a constant.
"Certainty? In this world
nothing is certain but death and taxes."
Benjamin Franklin
higher density = more environmentally friendly
Absolutely true my brother.
All I was saying is that it's wrong for us to say we don't have to think about fossil fuel shortages just because we don't drive. The Hummer driver might be doing more damage, but he won't be the only one affected.
A two-pound bag of breakfast cereal burns the energy of a half-gallon of gasoline in its making.
And it's unfood, not much better for you than just drinking the gas from the pump.
Our gas prices really aren't all that far out of line with Europe's -- it's just that Europeans are taxed on fuel at an average rate of about 75%, with the UK taxed at an incredible rate of something like 300%-400% (that is to say, 3/4 - 4/5 of the pump price goes to fuel tax and GST while 1/5 - 1/4 of what you pay goes to station owners, oil producers, and refiners). This has risen since the last time I looked, when the UK rate was "only" approximately 250%. In any case, the tax rates on fuel in the US vary by state but are generally in the area of 10-20% total against a price of $4/gal.
I kind of expect the European schadenfreude. That's fine. Everyone needs a hobby.
I am awaiting my American brethren to awaken and show some of that terrible resolve Isoroku Yamamoto spoke of.
Take the noose off of your neck.
Followup: I just ran some hard numbers; using a current "petrol price finder" website I find an average price in the UK of 110p/L ($8.28/gal after tax). Working backwards from a published fuel tax rate of 53.6p/L and GST of 17.5% I compute a pre-tax price of 40p/L ($3.01/gal). The last time I got gas here it was $3.75/gal at the pump; working backwards from published state, local and federal sales and fuel taxes (37.4 cents/gal total fuel tax; 8.5% total sales tax) I compute a pre-tax price of $3.08/gal. I'm tempted to say that's higher but it's probably fairer to say the difference is negligible. Currency and unit conversions are courtesy of Google; math is mine.
You know, OM, that