Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Silence Over Gas Prices (rant)  
User currently offlineCometII From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

WARNING: non-political rant (if it gets to become economic/ideologic later that's fine, but as far as I'm concerned they are all to blame)

I'll make it short though.

Last two weeks prices in my area have gone from 3.59 to today 4.04. I have never seen a spike of this proportion. Not in the 2007 run-up, not when hurricanes threaten, not when Katrina, not when there is trouble in the Straights of Hormuz. It's probably up 20 cents in the last four days from Monday to today.

Obama and his administration are incompetent, craven bureaucrats. Incompetent because 5 years in there has been no net improvement in the price of energy. Craven because they were outraged at the rises in gas prices during the Bush years, yet now there silence is insulting and befitting completely out of touch elitist trying to protect their reputations and legacy. Quite simply, unashamed cowardice. And it is not a matter of taking populist measures like opening up strategic reserves or railing against "Big Oil". They need to own up to their failures, and to their hypocrisy of keeping oh so quiet as prices now soar past $4.

Oil companies are crooks. Yes popular to say for a long time, but how can you explain that they keep closing refineries when there is already a shortage of them? Why would you shut down production at a plant if you are actually not producing enough and the price is supportive? Would you not actually expand? Yes, it may be fair to say that building new refineries has been stalled by government irrational regulations, but that does not explain why the oil sector year after year closes more of them down. Don't give me the meat that they are old... they can upgrade them, repair them, and where there is a will there is a way.

Government and business are in the collusion, it is the only explanation. They both win by the current situation, and collusion makes them criminal actors.

If there is divine justice, I hope they burn in their oil.

Rant over.

Nothing is being done about the energy prices (or about the soaring rents in many areas of the country). People are being shafted from both sides of the equation. And get ready for food to go up pretty badly.

98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3715 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Obama and his administration are incompetent, craven bureaucrats. Incompetent because 5 years in there has been no net improvement in the price of energy.

That statement right there negated your whole rant.

Please read this carefully:

Government has very little to do with the price of oil and gas.

Oil and gas are mined, refined and shipped by private companies whos sole motive it the dollar. Profit. The price of oil before refining is set by a bloc of Middle Eastern nations and by a group of suits on Wall Strees. Both of those entities are out for their own profit.

Even Keystone has little to do with government. It is a Canadian company wanting to use Canadian labor to ship Canadian oil to the foreign market. How does that help the United States?

But, I digress.

Where government comes into the whole "price of oil and gas" equation is environmental regulations when drilling (so our ground water does not become more contaminated) and transport (tanker trucks getting refined gasoline to the stations). Exxon Valdez could fall under that category, but it could also fall under international maretime law.

The point is: Obama has zero... let me be clear: Z-E-R-O to do with gas prices. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineGrahamHill From France, joined Mar 2007, 2825 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3715 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Last two weeks prices in my area have gone from 3.59 to today 4.04. I have never seen a spike of this proportion

Prices in France are around €1.70/liter. That's $8.30/gallon. Consider yourself (still) lucky.

When I went to Boston last December, I fill up my rental car with a big smile on my face  Smile

[Edited 2013-02-22 09:02:26]


"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
User currently offlinemax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1046 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

While you have a right to be angry, ranting is not going to get you anywhere when major changes around the world are forcing an inevitable rise in energy prices. Prices will always fluctuate with ups and downs in the short term, but the general trend for the future is up.

A few major factors pushing up prices include - oil producing parts of the world are becoming more dangerous/unstable everyday (Middle East), new oil finds are more expensive to extract (deep sea drilling), and billions of people in emerging markets are consuming more oil than ever before. These macroeconomic forces are much stronger in pushing prices up than factors pushing prices down, like building more refineries or even drilling oil in every state of the country (even if that were politically possible).

However, there are many things within our control that will help control our energy costs which we're all familiar with. Like driving slower on the highway, buying a more efficient car, living closer to work, etc. While not all of these are feasible for everyone, it's a step in the right direction to help mitigate the inevitable rise in our energy costs. These are much more feasible than eliminating every last terrorist in Iraq or asking China and Brazil to go back to the days when they used less oil.



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3305 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3653 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Us Americans have no right to complain about gas. It's so crazy cheap compared to Europe and other countries. After all, a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas, so why aren't you ranting about that?

Buy a more economical car, or bite the bullet (I did the latter, my car gets 16MPG city, 23MPG highway).

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3638 times:

The government has nothing to do with oil prices in real terms.

They have a lot to do with inflation though.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3098 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Obama and his administration are incompetent, craven bureaucrats. Incompetent because 5 years in there has been no net improvement in the price of energy.

Not gonna repeat what has been said above, but I want to bring up something:

If I recall correctly, when oil prices began to rise back in 2007 and 2008, Bush was blamed and the response was that it was the free market's fault since government can't control the price. Now that there's a new president, the free market is suddenly without fault...so which one is it? Is it the government or is it the free market? It can't be the free market when a Republican is in charge and the president when a Democrat is in charge.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 7):
If I recall correctly, when oil prices began to rise back in 2007 and 2008, Bush was blamed and the response was that it was the free market's fault since government can't control the price. Now that there's a new president, the free market is suddenly without fault...so which one is it? Is it the government or is it the free market? It can't be the free market when a Republican is in charge and the president when a Democrat is in charge.

Just like it can't be the president when a Republican is in charge, and the free market when a Democrat is in charge.

I wonder how that slipped through the cracks?



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):

The point is: Obama has zero... let me be clear: Z-E-R-O to do with gas prices. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

He does have something to do with the outrageous deficit spending and nearly doubling the national debt since he's been in office, and with the monetary policy that supports it (he does not directly control monetary policy, but so far the Fed has done everything he has asked). Such policies influence the value of the dollar overseas, and since oil is normally valued in dollars, naturally, foreign countries are demanding substantially more dollars than before because of the inherent risk of owning them.

If we balanced our budget today (in a sustainable way), oil prices would probably go down by up to half.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25369 posts, RR: 49
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

Gas prices tend to rise going into spring every year regardless of outside influences.

Why?

1)Per regulations the refiners must switch between winter to summer blends. To do this they must take facilities off line, sometimes as much as 3-weeks at a time. Summer blends are also more expensive to produce as their oxygenates, or fuel additives are pricier.

2) Fuel demand increases as we enter spring and head towards Memorial Day driving peak.

So combined with more limited refined supply (as refineries shut down to make the blend switch) and similarly timed increasing demand its only natural prices will rise.


As far as the comment about refineries closing in America, yes it true. The cost to operate them and make major required upgrades is often excess of what the profit margin is. Due to regulatory limitation there has not been a significant refinery complex built in the US since 1977. So until the economics make it a viable proposition don't expect new ones to pop up.


Lastly regarding cost of fuel overseas - that is much a result of local taxation.
The raw oil commodity price its the same everywhere. Some nations decided to to use fuel as a means to levy incredibly high taxes on business and consumers.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCaliAtenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1577 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

If its true that we are going to run out of oil eventually, isnt there a way to chemically create synthetic oil? Or a compound that is chemically similar enough?

User currently offlinedoug_Or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3407 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

More people are consuming more energy. Expect prices to continue to rise. There might be dips and peaks, but the average increase in energy prices is probably going to keep climbing compared to average wages in this country. Adapt or die.


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
Government has very little to do with the price of oil and gas.

Except of course the mandated formula change that occurs this time of year which creates an artifical supply shortage driving up prices. That and for the few lucky states in the Union a percentage based tax that creates an exponential increase.

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/mf.pdf


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3550 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
The raw oil commodity price its the same everywhere. Some nations decided to to use fuel as a means to levy incredibly high taxes on business and consumers.

No, they decided that taxation was a good way to make people consume less oil, make manufacturers improve engines, etc. limiting the imports of oil needed, limiting the need to fight oil wars, fund navy fleets, get in bed with Saudis, improving the trade balance, limiting pollution, and other benefits.

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 11):
If its true that we are going to run out of oil eventually, isnt there a way to chemically create synthetic oil? Or a compound that is chemically similar enough?

Yes there is a way, but not at 4$ a gallon. In fact most of the current chemical industry is oil based, so when it will become too rare there will be many things that will have to be made differently, and there is really no need to make oil for cars, just make ethanol or biodiesel directly.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3527 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
If we balanced our budget today (in a sustainable way), oil prices would probably go down by up to half.

Oil prices skyrocketed during the Bush years when we ran much smaller deficits, so your reasoning does little to explain oil prices.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3525 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 16):
Oil prices skyrocketed during the Bush years when we ran much smaller deficits, so your reasoning does little to explain oil prices.

They skyrocketed during

A) Economic boom which dramatically increases demand. Not the case now.
B) Threats of war/blocade/natural disaster in oil producing or processing regions. Not the case now.

The reasons for oil spikes present during GWB's administration are not present today. Of course you know that, so why do you try to muddy the waters with the argument?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3305 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3500 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
The reasons for oil spikes present during GWB's administration are not present today. Of course you know that, so why do you try to muddy the waters with the argument?

He's not muddying the waters, he's strenghtening his point. If the factors present during the Bush years are different that the factors present now but gas is still rising in price, it's very obvious that the current government's policies and actions have nothing to do with gas prices.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
The reasons for oil spikes present during GWB's administration are not present today.

Global demand for oil continues to hit new highs each year, so the demand is still there. And natural disasters, threats of blockades and war are still on-going as well. Sorry, but little has fundamentally changed.

You're just desperate to blame Obama for a problem that existed long before Obama ever became president and will continue to exist long after he is gone.


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3469 times:

Quoting GrahamHill (Reply 2):
Prices in France are around €1.70/liter. That's $8.30/gallon. Consider yourself (still) lucky.

That's amazing, because I can remember one of my trips driving in Europe back in the early 1990s almost 20 years ago and average cost was about $6.75 a gallon in Europe and in the US at that time it had to be about either side of $2.00 a gallon depending on whether you lived in Texas or California.

All things being equal, if Europe got about a 17 or 18% increase..then current US prices should be about $2.40-2.70 tops.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Some nations decided to to use fuel as a means to levy incredibly high taxes on business and consumers.

I was watching old foreign clips from the 1970s last week and a news anchor came right out and said 'OPEC decided to strike a blow against the US and raise oil prices on the open market another XX percent. The foundation of that retaliatory increase still resides within today's cost (I'm there were addition 'I'll teach you' increases in there as well), now that the US is a major player in all this, they've rescinded none of it. Why give up profit when you don't have to.

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 11):
If its true that we are going to run out of oil eventually,

Not anytime soon, the estimated oil reserves of the Oil Barons is in excess of 10+ trillion barrels, as shrewd businessmen, they've priced that out and down to the last barrel and have the corresponding dollar number..and they intend to get that very last penny. No new energy sources can be allowed to flourish freely until that penny is added to the bank account.. that is their thinking.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 16):

Oil prices skyrocketed during the Bush years

And during the Carter years, the Reagan and Bush I years... as they were heavily invested (except for Carter) and they all looked and us feeling sorry about it while secretly counting how much they were making of the skyrocketing..and are still doing it now.

Expect no help from anyone making bank off skyrocketing fuel prices. Troublesome consumer advocacy is your best bet... someone doing 'the right thing' .. is out of the question.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3456 times:

Quoting BN747 (Reply 20):
All things being equal, if Europe got about a 17 or 18% increase..then current US prices should be about $2.40-2.70 tops.

The difference is that a big chunk of the tax is fixed, it doesn't depend on the cost of oil. So when oil goes up, the proportion of the tax in the final price goes down. If oil doubles, the final price doesn't double here. In the US it does.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Oil companies are crooks. Yes popular to say for a long time, but how can you explain that they keep closing refineries when there is already a shortage of them?

That is fairly simple, if demand is fairly consistent and the fact that aren't a large number of oil companies relative to a lot of industries one of the biggest ways to increase your bottom line is to intentionally limit the supply.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
Even Keystone has little to do with government. It is a Canadian company wanting to use Canadian labor to ship Canadian oil to the foreign market. How does that help the United States?

Also to refine some of that oil in Texas.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Per regulations the refiners must switch between winter to summer blends. To do this they must take facilities off line, sometimes as much as 3-weeks at a time. Summer blends are also more expensive to produce as their oxygenates, or fuel additives are pricier.

Never thought of that but it makes sense.

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 11):

If its true that we are going to run out of oil eventually, isnt there a way to chemically create synthetic oil? Or a compound that is chemically similar enough?

They are working on things like bio-diesel and ethanol to run in the present engines of cars as an example.


Quoting BN747 (Reply 20):
Not anytime soon, the estimated oil reserves of the Oil Barons is in excess of 10+ trillion barrels, as shrewd businessmen, they've priced that out and down to the last barrel and have the corresponding dollar number..and they intend to get that very last penny. No new energy sources can be allowed to flourish freely until that penny is added to the bank account.. that is their thinking.

There may be heaps of oil left out there but it is becoming harder and more expensive to mine. Even oil sands oil is only profitable to extract at IIRC around $70 per barrel.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3380 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 23):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 20):
Not anytime soon, the estimated oil reserves of the Oil Barons is in excess of 10+ trillion barrels, as shrewd businessmen, they've priced that out and down to the last barrel and have the corresponding dollar number..and they intend to get that very last penny. No new energy sources can be allowed to flourish freely until that penny is added to the bank account.. that is their thinking.

There may be heaps of oil left out there but it is becoming harder and more expensive to mine. Even oil sands oil is only profitable to extract at IIRC around $70 per barrel.

I'm suspect about that viewpoint, technological advances and new age applied innovative techniques have made the cost of film production drop like a rock, auto production cost plummet... everything done with machinery is affected - including the oil industry. After BP, (Exxon Valdez actually) I for one have learned..the oil industry simply cannot be trusted at anything they say and I do mean anything.

The old 'it cost us more to drill deeper' comes from a fat bag of 'means to justify anything' they just always seem to have handy. If you paid attention to the last 10 'Oil Executives hauled before Congress to explain unreasonable hikes" hearings... you learned something, or maybe you didn't. But saw Congress treating these people (like the bankers) with a total politeness and dare not offend attitude, while in the steroid hearings they were treating the athletes as if they were 'physical equals' in the WWF pre-match smack talking warm ups. Clearly, Congress knows more than me or any of you and is happy with the current situation and whatever the Energy Companies tell them sans independent investigation. If you can't learn anything from that.. you really do not want to know what's going on.

But in short..if you feel like you're getting screwed... I have news for you, you're 100% correct - you are!
..and if for minute you really think like this..

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Obama and his administration are incompetent, craven bureaucrats. Incompetent because 5 years in there has been no net improvement in the price of energy.

...you need your head examined. If anyone could do something..it'd be the Congress. But they're well cared for...so why should they?



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3348 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
A) Economic boom which dramatically increases demand. Not the case now.

Creating one of the biggest bubbles (not booms) in history is not really a mitigating factor.

The only real difference between either administrations' recklessness is that they exist on different sides of the burst.


User currently offlineSuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

The only thing governments can do to try to decrease petrol and other energy prices is invest in infrastructure for alternative energy. Germany is starting to do that, they will begin investing in a network of hydrogen pumps across the country.

Oil is slowly going to run out (this is not an immediate concern, but the easiest to drill oil has been used up), demand is going to increase a lot more. In the long run, prices will not drop but rise.


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3377 times:

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 26):
Germany is starting to do that, they will begin investing in a network of hydrogen pumps across the country.

I could be wrong, but I doubt if there is a powerful oil lobby in Germany as we have here..

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 26):
The only thing governments can do to try to decrease petrol and other energy prices is invest in infrastructure for alternative energy.

The Oil Lobby here (see Health Care Lobby wars) .. will fight that to the death the moment 'alternative energies' start to seriously infringe on their market share. Trust me, they are watching (if not buying up every alternative energy patent issued - and shelving it) every move, from every angle and ready to 'take out anything' resembling a threat to fossil fuel consumption. At the same time..they've put together some super cute n' fuzzy commercials about how their scientist are working 24 hours a day seeking fuel alternatives. Now that's how you politic.. say one thing, do the exact opposite with a vengeance.

Nothing personal, it's just business.

BN747

[Edited 2013-02-22 17:34:11]


"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Hey, it costs us £80 to fill a 13 UK Gal/15US Gal tank with diesel.

That gets us about 400 miles - Americans don't know the first thing about expensive fuel. Come back when it's $11 a gallon like it is here now.


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6293 posts, RR: 33
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

I would prefer to pay less than what the price is today but I can afford the price. I actually spend less in actual dollars and percentage of income today than I did 30 years ago. You may want to get used to it, it's not going down for a few more years and then you won't use it anyway.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineaircatalonia From Spain, joined Nov 2007, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 11):
If its true that we are going to run out of oil eventually, isnt there a way to chemically create synthetic oil? Or a compound that is chemically similar enough?

Yes there is, but it takes almost 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel of such substances, that's the problem with biofuels and the like. If you are interested, this is called "energy returned on energy invested" (EROEI).

This means that even if we are producing record amounts of oil, a growing proportion is going into oil production itself, leaving a dwindling amout of "net energy" available to society. The consequences of this are price increases.


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3645 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
5 years in there has been no net improvement in the price of energy.

Actually there has. Natural gas is significantly cheaper. So is solar power.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
Oil and gas are mined, refined and shipped by private companies whos sole motive it the dollar.

That is a myth. Most of the oil around the world is controlled by various governments/dictators/tyrants, etc. The oil companies own very little of the oil they extract.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 4):

Us Americans have no right to complain about gas. It's so crazy cheap compared to Europe and other countries.

I am thoroughly sick of hearing about how much more it costs in Europe (as if that made them superior). Fact is, it is also significantly cheaper than our prices in other places around the world.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Gas prices tend to rise going into spring every year regardless of outside influences.

This is not spring and that is not the reason for this spike, which the OP is correct, seems to be drawing little attention for it's severity. This spike is once again driven by speculators. There are no overwhelming problems in oil areas right now, nor is there a significant demand issue, supplies are abundant even with Saudi Arabia's cutback. The "markets" are both "nervous" about turmoil and "hopeful" of an economic turnaround increasing demand.. And so we pay the price.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5650 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3238 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 4):
After all, a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas, so why aren't you ranting about that?

Not in my neck of the woods. Just bought a gallon yesterday, while it was on sale, the non-sale price was listed at $2.80/gal. Gas hit that for a few weeks last month, but other than that I haven't seen gas that low since 2009.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3224 times:

Having been involved in the fuel shortage back in the seventies, the odd/even fuel rationing event left a mark on me ever since then. I knew it could always happen again.
Apparently many forgot what it was like or now just don't care. As long as the US keeps designing, marketing and manufacturing 8 cylinder Escalades, Suburbans and 6500lb Dodge Ram Pick up trucks, all being occupied by one soul...I'll never shed a tear over fuel costs at the pump. If Americans want lower fuel prices then deter the demand and buy smaller vehicles. Here on Long Island the majority of vehicles are SUV's or Big pick up trucks...nice to have but really...are they used to their advertised, full extent...no. Driving in Europe is such a pleasure as the visibilty on the road is so much better without SUV's blocking your vision. Gas is more expensive, cars are smaller and I would see at least two souls in every car...not one. High fuel costs in Europe have forced the locals to use their heads while back here in the states, the old "bigger is better montra" still rules the road and shows at the pump. Until Americans get a grip...we will constantly be manipulated by the shills that play the shell game here in the gas industry. Truth is...even with all the instability in the world...$80-$100 barel is BS. Especially where the US is concerned...with all the apparent liberation we brought to the middle east, we should benefit from much lower oil prices...(yeah, sure)    Some one is but it is not the consumer.


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 39):
Especially where the US is concerned...with all the apparent liberation we brought to the middle east, we should benefit from much lower oil prices...(yeah, sure)    Some one is but it is not the consumer.

Yep... we paid a lot of Blood to 'free the oil market'.. and what did the US public get besides a warm fuzzy feeling of playing 'the hero'...

...your reward? Higher prices at the pump!

Now where is that photo that as on the cover of a pre-Iraq Invasion edition of USA Today with that Pro-War guy holding up a sign reading " Just Take the Damn Oil'

..I wonder how he feels now pumping his Ford F50.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3185 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Oil companies are crooks.

What do you base this gem on?   

I work for one of the oil majors - last year our capital spend (predominantly on development of new production) was over $15billion. Our profit margin hovers around the 5-6% mark. That's considerably lower than comanies like McDonalds or Starbucks.

If you're unhappy about 'gas' prices in the US, come over to Europe to fill up. I spent $150 on fuel yesterday.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineSuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Quoting BN747 (Reply 27):
I could be wrong, but I doubt if there is a powerful oil lobby in Germany as we have here..

Probably not. The lobby of the auto industry is quite effective though, and it is perhaps no surprise that the German government announced this just as BMW publicized an agreement with Toyota to research and build hydrogen powered cars. As GM is also experimenting with this technology, who knows...


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3120 times:

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 25):
The only thing governments can do to try to decrease petrol and other energy prices is invest in infrastructure for alternative energy. Germany is starting to do that, they will begin investing in a network of hydrogen pumps across the country.

But hydrogen isn't an alternative energy. It's an alternative fuel. It's almost exclusively made from natural gas, oil, coal...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
and his fiscal and monetary policies - inasmuch as he talks about what he wants and what he actually has the power to do - is counterproductive

Well, if he had a "responsible" fiscal policy like we have in the EU, the US economy would tank, like in the EU. Cheap gasoline doesn't matter that much when you don't have a job.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 42):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 27):
I could be wrong, but I doubt if there is a powerful oil lobby in Germany as we have here..

Probably not.

Now that's interesting... so now I must wonder, why would the most powerful network on earth, the Energy Syndicate (only fair since banks are now called Banksters [said gangsters]) see the need for a powerful lobbying arm in the US..and not in another 1st tier nation like Germany? Sure, we are the undisputed # 1 consumer of product (with China closing in). And China becomes #1...I seriously doubt that there will be a 'Energy Lobby' wing free to dictate to the Peoples Assembly as it does here in the USA.

China isn't known for 'paying retail' and keeping matters 'upfront and above board'...

..by that comparison, it really does look like the US Congress & Energy Syndicate are running some sort of racket on the largest consumer base on the planet...

Edited: because as soon as I posted this, I clicked over to HuffPo and the lead story as of now is this..
Red Tape, Litigation Strangling Development Of Offshore Wind Power In U.S.

...making one wonder, just who is behind all that Red Tape putting their foot down on the neck of developing 'Wind Power'???

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ind-regulation-liti_n_2736008.html
from the article:
Department of Energy data on the potential of offshore wind in the U.S. is impressive. It suggests that as much as 4 million megawatts of electricity could be harnessed from the steady breezes blowing on state and federal waters along the coasts of the U.S., as well as in the Great Lakes. That's roughly four times the combined generating capacity of all existing electric power plants in the nation today, according to DOE -- and the Obama administration has made it a mission to finally get the industry moving.

Yes, the NIMBYs are in play, but they could never muster the power to 'create all the regulatory agencies and road blocks' necessary to put up such a fortress of obstruction.

BN747

[Edited 2013-02-23 07:53:32]

[Edited 2013-02-23 08:08:21]


"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2888 posts, RR: 7
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 39):
Here on Long Island the majority of vehicles are SUV's or Big pick up trucks...nice to have but really...are they used to their advertised, full extent...no. Driving in Europe is such a pleasure as the visibilty on the road is so much better without SUV's blocking your vision.

It amazes me every day the amount of Long Islanders who insist on having a large pick-up truck or SUV just for the purpose of having one...then bitch about how they are financially screwed because it costs them like $100+ a week to fill up their vehicle with gas on top of the high cost of living here otherwise. It costs me ~$40/week to fill up my Honda Civic Hybrid and drive it from W. Babylon to JFK and back everyday, I truly love my car (I'm going to miss it when I sell it off next year), it has a great ride and has a dash layout that makes it very user-friendly. I drive through the snow and ice and all the other crap we get without any problem. If I need a truck for any reason (moving large stuff and whatnot), I can always rent one for the day.

I also agree with you about the visibility. I am so tired of getting cut off by and stuck with having a huge SUV ahead of me and not being able to see anything ahead of me. So annoying      

~H81



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlinetz757300 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2868 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 45):
I also agree with you about the visibility. I am so tired of getting cut off by and stuck with having a huge SUV ahead of me and not being able to see anything ahead of me. So annoying

I've always wondered how much traffic congestion in NYC would improve if everyone ditched the jumbo vehicles and driving visibility improved. There has to be some traffic delay just because people can't see what's ahead very well.



LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16866 posts, RR: 51
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Incompetent because 5 years in there has been no net improvement in the price of energy.

There's been a huge improvement in the price of energy over the past five years, Natural gas prices have plummeted. I have fuel oil to heat my home and pay about $900 a month to heat it where friends with similar sized homes and Natural gas pay about $175 a month to not only heat their homes but to cook, for their dryers and hot water heaters. My development is finally getting natural gas this Spring, after I called every Politician (Local, State, Federal) who represents my area to pressure the gas company. The Mayor of my town and my State Senator were instrumental in getting the Natural gas company to bring us Natural gas. I'm going to save huge amounts of money in both heat and electric bills.

Gasoline prices are another thing, and while you lambaste it being President Obama's fault I think you need to look a little more closely at the issue. You can start with mass of oil company mergers that were allowed, putting Mobile Oil (Former Standard Oil Co of New York) and Exxon (Former Standard Oil co of New Jersey) was a terrible idea. There were others involving Shell, BP, AMOCO, TEXACO and smaller companies that has allowed them to close refineries and raise their profits.

In 1997-1998 I was paying .79 cents a gallon in New Jersey, today it's about $3.60 a gallon. The difference, less refinery capacity due to consolidation. It's the same thing the airlines are doing, merge to reduce capacity and raise fares.

This is not going to change, my advice plan for high prices to stay. Get a more fuel efficient car, I turned in my Jeep Grand Cherokee and got a Volkswagen that gets more than double the mileage. You can also use Credit card programs to help save, and depending on where you live and shop Shell offers discounts to certain Grocery Store customers. I use Stop and Shop and have save .80 cents a gallon, most times it's around .30 cents. Depends how much you shop.

Check out Shell for details:

http://www.shell.us.com

[Edited 2013-02-23 08:36:29]


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3035 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
He obstructs new drilling and technologies (eg fracking),

Yum, tastes like methane.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3023 posts, RR: 36
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3030 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting BN747 (Reply 44):
Yes, the NIMBYs are in play, but they could never muster the power to 'create all the regulatory agencies and road blocks' necessary to put up such a fortress of obstruction.

Depends which NIMBYs you are talking about...

The Cape Cod NIMBY and Martha's Vineyard NIMBY for example have enough political clout to do just about anything, and alot of the regulatory red tape has come from that direction.

Now other NIMBY groups can just leverage the existing precedence to muck up the process. Wind Power is NOT that powerful a lobby group to begin with either.

Now here in Ontario on the other hand we have about the polar opposite of whats going on in the US. The provincial government forcing wind farms down the throat of local government/population with no apparent appeal available.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16259 posts, RR: 56
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

Gas prices should be high, indeed even higher than they are now. The US has the world's lowest gas prices so Americans have nothing to complain about.

The cost to government of maintaining the massive road/highway system actually warrants much higher gas taxes, even moreso when the cost to the environment is figured in. I'd like to see gas prices double -- it will reduce road use, and encourage people to live closer to work and source locally.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12250 posts, RR: 35
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2929 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 50):
The US has the world's lowest gas prices so Americans have nothing to complain about.

Might not wanna tell places like Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others that they aren't part of the world...



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8538 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
The point is: Obama has zero... let me be clear: Z-E-R-O to do with gas prices. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Well, he could probably make it go even higher. But yeah, probably not lower.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 50):
The cost to government of maintaining the massive road/highway system actually warrants much higher gas taxes, even moreso when the cost to the environment is figured in. I'd like to see gas prices double -- it will reduce road use, and encourage people to live closer to work and source locally.

I agree. Basically carbon taxes could achieve that.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 52):
Might not wanna tell places like Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others that they aren't part of the world...

Doesn't matter. US energy prices are still significantly lower than many places. So you tend not to get much sympathy when you bitch about them.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2869 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 50):

Actually, if they stopped subsidizing mass transit with the highway trust fund the the financial picture for roads would be far better. Up until the 80s, when they started diverting highway trust fund money to mass transit, the trust fund ran a surplus.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2840 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 41):
Our profit margin hovers around the 5-6% mark.

Is that before or after American government hand-outs are figured in?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
He obstructs new drilling and technologies (eg fracking),

Except that drilling is at an all time high.

The problem is the right and their choice not to see oil is going away. There is so much "new technology" to drill for oil still in the ground but it hard to get to. It is going away. They don't want "alternatives" but they want to create a crisis. Like they always do. Invent ways to scare people so they can stay in power. "We can give you more oil cheaper!" and "We can balance the budget!" and "we can fight the terrorists for you!" except none of that happens.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 33):
Hurricanes in the Gulf come and go. That was not a primary cause of oil prices shooting up during the Bush administration.

Even when oil companies jacked up prices and blamed it on hurricanes. Or blizzards. Or a hang nail.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2829 times:

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 52):
Might not wanna tell places like Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others that they aren't part of the world...

Their government sells their oil to their citizens for very little and export it at the market rate.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 34):
That is a myth. Most of the oil around the world is controlled by various governments/dictators/tyrants, etc. The oil companies own very little of the oil they extract.

  

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 33):
Hurricanes in the Gulf come and go. That was not a primary cause of oil prices shooting up during the Bush administration.

One of the biggest reasons that oil prices are high right now and highly volatile is trader speculation which amounts to a good chunk of the market price.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2818 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 4):

Us Americans have no right to complain about gas. It's so crazy cheap compared to Europe and other countries. After all, a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas, so why aren't you ranting about that?

Well, firstly, I don't know anyone who buys 20 gals of milk a week. As well, to compare gas prices between here and there is not really relevant until you factor in the somewhat glaring wage differences from one place to the other. Is your min wage 4.5 Euros/hr? I know you're Swiss, but you get the idea...

The issue really isn't the cost of fuel; rather it's one of percentage of expenditure relative to income. I'm willing to bet that figure probably makes fuel cheaper on your end for the average citizen. As well, our vehicles, simply put, do not utilize fuel well compared to what you have available there.

For folks that willingly purchase ridiculous SUVs & Pick ups that have no real utility and negative safety value for other drivers, yes, like you, I have no sympathies. There's no need for such things in the non-commercial realm & if we were serious about controlling the issue, we'd slap a $50,000 registration tax per sale. But we're not serious, at all, about this as evidenced by the resistance to anything being done about this.

But for the rest of us, yeah, we're kind of in a bind and have every right not to like it, and to be heard in that regard. I'm willing to bet that you folks have a much higher percentage of efficient (and let's put the floor for that at 45mpg or 5.06L/100k) vehicles available.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 50):

Gas prices should be high, indeed even higher than they are now. The US has the world's lowest gas prices so Americans have nothing to complain about.

No, gas prices should be stratified. Vehicles that demand much less fuel should not be coerced into subsidizing cheaper fuel for larger ones.

And as mentioned, there are a lot of places with cheaper gas than us. Whether you want to live there or not is another debate entirely, but they do exist.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 54):
US energy prices are still significantly lower than many places.

As are wages. If you want to make a real comparison, we need to look at all the factors involved.

In the US you have two kinds of people who complain about gas prices. The min wagers that need to work the first day and a half of their week to fill a tank, and then we have rich people who will complain about the cost of anything. One is easily discounted, the other, not so much.

Like I said, I do not feel bad for people who buy vehicles that are expensive to operate, and if I had my way, they'd be even more so.

It's the other folks (and there are a damned lot of them here) that I would really be concerned for.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2805 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 5):
The government has nothing to do with oil prices in real terms.

The first impact the government has is with their tax per gallon of gas.

Other factors, though, can have a more severe impact. Think Hurricane Sandy impacted prices. New refineries being built recently? Doubt it with the NIMBY mentality we have in this country. I've actually been waiting for some smart governor to announce that he's going to build the largest refinery in the country so he can help out his surrounding neighbors. Oh, and he is going to put a 50¢ a gallon export tax on refined products. Those revenues will go into health and education as well as building new roads, or maintenance on the older ones,

The other area were we can bring down costs is via bringing down use. The old gas hog tax on the heavy drinkers, and equally as extensive tax credits for those buying fuel efficient cars. We've got a lot of pick-em-up trucks in Oklahoma as well as a lot of big SUVs. Shrinking them some makes economic sense.


User currently offlineCaliAtenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1577 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 21):

Yes, one to check out is algae biofuel. If the promise of this comes true then it will radically change the industry but it isn't there yet.

interesting  . Would this be able to work in the internal combustion engines we have now? I am aware of bio fuels (ethanol and such) and bio diesel, but if they could chemically synthesize a compound that could be sold at what gas is sold at today or not much more, then it would be amazing.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 56):
Is that before or after American government hand-outs are figured in?

Which handouts are those?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3305 posts, RR: 13
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 58):
I know you're Swiss, but you get the idea...
Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 58):
your end for the average citizen.
Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 58):
you folks have a much higher percentage of efficient vehicles

I deliberately started the sentence with "Us Americans" because I am one (a misunderstanding happened in the gun control thread as well because of my flag icon). I was born (and have always lived) in the USA, which I hope makes my statement a bit more impactful and not the usual "Oh my God, you guys are so whiny!" we get from Europeans normally.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 63):
but if they could chemically synthesize a compound that could be sold at what gas is sold at today or not much more, then it would be amazing.

Petrol and other such fuels certainly can be synthesised, from air and water, for example. It seems at the moment that it is still too costly, but as techniques are refined and fossil-fuel prices rise, a point will no doubt come where the balance might be tipped in favour of synthesis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20152919

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...l-industry-approaches-8218812.html



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 19):
No new energy sources can be allowed to flourish freely until that penny is added to the bank account.. that is their thinking.

That's counterintuitive. If you have the technology to replace oil for one or more major applications, the payday will be at least as big as continuing to extract oil.

That's ONLY if you and and your circle of Oil Pals have the 'alternative' market cornered as they do now fossil fuels.. that simply wont be possible, so they are not interested. Status quo remains til every last drop is sold (and they can structure Congress & Laws in such a way that they get a piece of every alternative energy action 'allowed or permitted') ... again, no offense it's just business.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 19):
someone doing 'the right thing' .. is out of the question.

Making money is the right thing.

Yes, we know you are the largest propenent of the 'Greed is Good' theorum here, but once you get to really play the game (and not from the current classroom day dreams) you'll find it's not what you think it is ..and the price for such devotion is far steeper than you could ever imagine. Same as saying 'Gaining Power is the right thing' ..that's a seriously double-edged sword that has a lot of bodies in it's wake.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 23):
The old 'it cost us more to drill deeper' comes from a fat bag of 'means to justify anything' they just always seem to have handy.

Well, having oil rigs to drill into the ocean floor or producing from oil sands is a little more difficult and expensive than the Beverly Hillbillies method.

They've gotta spend billions on something besides the tankers...why not more gigantic ocean bearing eye sores?! It's chump change,...it's just a building made of metal & steel pipes/frames then tethered to the ocean floor. Looks cool all lit up in the darkness of night...but ugly as hell driving along the coast on a sunny beach day.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
They love capitalism but blame the socialist/marxist/maoist/Muslim/Kenyan (how can one person be all of those things?)

First of all, it's not Kenyan, it's Keynesian.

ummmm, no... for Obama, the implied derisive term is Kenyan, a longstanding mockery of his ethnicity.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3871 posts, RR: 13
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 28):
Dig a little harder next time. A crude oil pipeline between Edmonton and Vancouver was constructed in the 1950s, and it carries a mix of crude oil and refined products to the coast now.

My apologies. I was basing my post off of a national geographic article that I had read, which did not mention such a pipeline, or at least implied that that the keystone alternative proposal was a novel development

Quoting BN747 (Reply 44):
blocks' necessary to put up such a fortress of obstruction.

The problem with wind and solar (and any renewable) is that you need fossil fuel back-up plants (in case the wind doesnt blow or the sun doesn't shine), which can add to the cost of developing these wind and solar farms.

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 63):
I am aware of bio fuels (ethanol and such) and bio diesel, but if they could chemically synthesize a compound that could be sold at what gas is sold at today or not much more, then it would be amazing.

Ethanol and corn fuel is not the solution to our energy problems, because it creates an even bigger problem: increased food prices. The holy grail of biofuels is to take a substance w/no demand for use in other forms by humans--this is why there's such an interest in algae.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
That's ONLY if you and and your circle of Oil Pals have the 'alternative' market cornered as they do now fossil fuels.. that simply wont be possible, so they are not interested.

If they are suppressing it now, they obviously do have the market cornered. This conspiracy simply doesn't exist, not least because there is no good reason why it should.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
..and the price for such devotion is far steeper than you could ever imagine.

The price is nothing when someone else pays it.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
It's chump change,...it's just a building made of metal & steel pipes/frames then tethered to the ocean floor.

It has to pay for itself at the end of the day. Oil doesn't extract itself.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
Looks cool all lit up in the darkness of night...but ugly as hell driving along the coast on a sunny beach day.

You should stop driving then. You hate oil companies and you hate seeing oil rigs as you drive along. Seems like you could kill two birds with one stone.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
ummmm, no... for Obama, the implied derisive term is Kenyan, a longstanding mockery of his ethnicity.

Perhaps in your world, where anyone disagreeing with Obama must be a racist. In the real world, where conservatives are not the tobacco chewing, book hating stereotype you'd like them to be, Keynesian is a far more relevant term and criticism of Obama's (and others') policies.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
That decision should be solely in the hands of people who own such things.

Not really. The bigger the car or truck the more wear on the roads and the more tax dollars we need to maintain them. Maybe you'll go along with increasing the petrol tax in order to help pay for those big things.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Of course, this change could have other effects too, like the drop in demand causing a drop in prices, or the increase in prices leading to more reserves becoming economical to extract.



Fuel costs are massively complex. Closing down an old refinery because it's too expensive to keep going? Interstate -v- intrastate sales? Cost cutting to the point of an explosively expensive clean-up (like BP heading into court now on their spills). Even balancing inventories over large (international) areas. Then add in seasonal demand.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Better technology could allow transition away from oil for many applications, while better technology in the oil industry means oil companies can extract difficult to access oil more cheaply, which helps supply.

The oil industry is pushing hard for use of newer technology. And people living around areas where some of this new technology is being used are fighting back. The best story on this was homeowners being able to light the water coming out of their faucets - with the fire continuing as long as the water was turned on.

Reality of the story? Find a way to utilize technology in a manner that isn't abusive or be able to pay a long line of jury awards.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Making money is the right thing.

ANd when it's abusive there are trial lawyers who are ready to make it right - making money in the process.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Those do, however, cut into food production and may or may not be a net positive in terms of energy.

But it the farmers are making more money isn't that the right thing to do?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Not to mention, that even with all those vehicles, I bet we still get far, far better fuel economy today than even twenty years ago.

Manufacturers have been pretty good responding to government regulations on safety, emissions and fuel economy. Check the thickness of a car from the late 50's (I still love the '59 Chevy). We've moved to thinner metals, made them able to absorb shock and we've even added plastic when that's a better option.

You're also paying for safety & emissions. I lost count of how many air bags my wife's Sonata has, but with grandkids in the car a lot of the time it's the more the merrier,

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
We shouldn't be serious. Their car, their problem.

That does not eliminate any benefits for using taxes to motivate consumers to move towards more efficient cars or trucks. That's in our benefit.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
That decision should be solely in the hands of people who own such things.

Not really. We should have a stake in what's on the road in any area that impacts us overall. Wear & tear on the roads is one issue. Ultra high bumpers that can cause additional damage or injury in an accident. We have a right to address a lot of issues when it comes to cars & trucks - that's why we have government agencies.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 70):
Not really. The bigger the car or truck the more wear on the roads and the more tax dollars we need to maintain them.

Except that even larger SUVs don't do that much damage to roadways. Most wear and tear is done by commercial vehicles. I'd be okay with taxing operators of such vehicles and/or moving towards more tolls.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 70):
Maybe you'll go along with increasing the petrol tax in order to help pay for those big things.

Nope. There is one thing the government should do with fuel taxes and that is to equalize the tax on gasoline and diesel.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 70):
But it the farmers are making more money isn't that the right thing to do?

That's for them to decide. I'm just pointing out that biofuels based on crops aren't really a complete solution. What farmers want to grow, who they sell it to, and what agribusiness ends up doing with it is their business.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 70):
That does not eliminate any benefits for using taxes to motivate consumers to move towards more efficient cars or trucks. That's in our benefit.

Screw "our benefit." I care about my benefit. Taxes are for funding the government, not telling citizens how they should live.

Liberals love to talk about getting the government out of their bedroom. That's fine and all, but they better get the government out of my garage too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2579 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 70):
The bigger the car or truck the more wear on the roads and the more tax dollars we need to maintain them.

A couple of things..

1. Its not the size of the vehicle, its the weight loading. For example, a 757 does far more load damage to a runway than a 777. Its all in how it is distributed across the wheels.

2. Gas taxes are a straight up consumption tax. Larger vehicles consume more fuel than the smaller vehicles, as a result they buy more gas and pay more tax.

[Edited 2013-02-24 10:33:14]

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8902 posts, RR: 10
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

I do not think there is silence, so much as there is resignation to the fact that market influences, demand, greed, profit, taxes, you name it are all part of the fleecing of America, and this world. You cannot beat the system, many have tried, some have. Many, many more have not, nor will not. It is the mindset now as well as in the past to not take a penny when you can take a nickel or a dime. Do not complain it is Capitalism in it purest form. Profit above all.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 62):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):They love capitalism but blame the socialist/marxist/maoist/Muslim/Kenyan (how can one person be all of those things?)
First of all, it's not Kenyan, it's Keynesian. Secondly, you can't be all of those things. Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are all different things in the same way that cancer, AIDS, and malaria are all different things.

He is still being labled as all of these things by many loud-mouth "conservative" talking heads. Those followers believe what they are told.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Perhaps in your world, where anyone disagreeing with Obama must be a racist.

Just the ones who imply or outright say because Obama is Black, he is lazy.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
In the real world, where conservatives are not the tobacco chewing, book hating stereotype you'd like them to be, Keynesian is a far more relevant term and criticism of Obama's (and others') policies.

It worked much better than unregulated capitalism. Remember what happend to the housing and banking sectors? That was Obama's fault even though he was not even sworn in. Remember that, under Clinton, he used trickle-up economics. Give the poor and middle class more money, and they will spend more. Not off-shore it all with some vague promise in the future they might create a job or two.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
I have never seen a spike of this proportion. Not in the 2007 run-up, not when hurricanes threaten, not when Katrina, not when there is trouble in the Straights of Hormuz.

I've seen the cost of gasoline go up 25% in the past month locally.

It doesn't matter is US gasoline is cheap and European expensive - a 25% increase in price for a base commodity hurts everyone - especially those with limited economic means.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 56):
There is so much "new technology" to drill for oil still in the ground but it hard to get to.

And expensive.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
He obstructs new drilling and technologies (eg fracking),

Those new drilling technologies and new drilling areas are VERY EXPENSIVE. For fracking to make money - the base price of gasoline at the pump needs to be close to $3.00 before taxes.

Proposals for deep offshore drilling will require $4.00 per gallon at the pump before taxes to be profitable.

The real problem is that while there is a lot of oil, and gas, still available to be exploited and pumped under the US, it is very expensive oil to extract and use.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2508 times:

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 61):
No, I do not understand how someone can both argue and vote against their best interests.

Well what do you think champagne socialists (or, the caviar left as we call them in France) do ? They increase taxes that they are paying. And, in the case of the current French government, they also reduced their salary by 30% (including the president).

Quoting us330 (Reply 68):
The problem with wind and solar (and any renewable) is that you need fossil fuel back-up plants (in case the wind doesnt blow or the sun doesn't shine), which can add to the cost of developing these wind and solar farms.

Not necessarily fossil. You can have molten salts (for solar heat), hydrogen/oxygen tanks (for photovoltaic), or water reservoirs with turbines : when you're generating electricity you pump water up, when you need it you let if flow through turbines.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 72):
For example, a 757 does far more load damage to a runway than a 777.

Interesting comparison, considering the 777 itself is kind of hard on the runways, especially the 77W. ORY had to repave its runways to allow AF to use its 77W there for the Caribbean/Indian ocean routes.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
oting BN747 (Reply 67):
That's ONLY if you and and your circle of Oil Pals have the 'alternative' market cornered as they do now fossil fuels.. that simply wont be possible, so they are not interested.

If they are suppressing it now, they obviously do have the market cornered. This conspiracy simply doesn't exist, not least because there is no good reason why it should.

Keep thinking like that and you'll never get that big pile of money you crave...
..2nd rule of climbing to the top - accepting 'the incredible and unbelievable as fact', nothing operates on premises of common (average) thought processes in business (I don't care what your teacher tells you).

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
..and the price for such devotion is far steeper than you could ever imagine.

The price is nothing when someone else pays it.

You missed that lesson by a cosmic mile..

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
It's chump change,...it's just a building made of metal & steel pipes/frames then tethered to the ocean floor.

It has to pay for itself at the end of the day. Oil doesn't extract itself.

Again, chum change..like building a one of ginormous apartment buildings in Playa Vista, except with oil profits as they are today ... they are paid off in a year (if so desired).

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
Looks cool all lit up in the darkness of night...but ugly as hell driving along the coast on a sunny beach day.

You should stop driving then. You hate oil companies and you hate seeing oil rigs as you drive along. Seems like you could kill two birds with one stone.

If defeatism works for you, then that's another bag of money up in smoke.
That's it..throw in the towel and let the Oil Barons have their way - with whatever they want.

But I like Michael Moore's strategy better, use their tools to berate them at every turn...and 'astop them from destroying our beaches and coastlines.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 69):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 67):
ummmm, no... for Obama, the implied derisive term is Kenyan, a longstanding mockery of his ethnicity.

Perhaps in your world, where anyone disagreeing with Obama must be a racist. In the real world, where conservatives are not the tobacco chewing, book hating stereotype you'd like them to be

What I want them to be has nothing to do with it... look at them, hear the words from their mouths they are the stereotypes and worse.

Of course, a skunk thinks it's everyone who smells - not him. I see how you can easily endorse that line of thought.

And I'd take a another sack of money from you were we to bet on how many Republicans could define a Kenyan vs the number that can describe a Keynesian. Most prefer usage of your denial of 'socialist/marxist/maoist/Muslim/Kenyan' sprinkled with a few racist jokes and insults for good measure.

Quoting us330 (Reply 68):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 44):
blocks' necessary to put up such a fortress of obstruction.

The problem with wind and solar (and any renewable) is that you need fossil fuel back-up plants (in case the wind doesnt blow or the sun doesn't shine), which can add to the cost of developing these wind and solar farms.

Nothing advances that way, it works more like 'old inefficient airport' has it's obligation taken over by new more efficient airport... both remain open until the newer is fully up and running in order to dismantle the older facility. Secondly, like water reservoirs - there's usually and overflow catchment as serve as a back up...same principle would apply here whereas excess generated power would power a back generator station for slow days. But is indeed quite rare to have non-windy days along many California beaches. The windmills in Palm Springs seem to always be in motion, but I bet they see far less action than any placed in the Pacific where Oil Rigs now reside.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2489 times:



 


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
Remember what happend to the housing and banking sectors?

Seems like I still hear complaints about how much banks make. 2008 seems to have been an aberration. And the housing bubble happened in part because of government cheerleading for home ownership.

You need to understand that bubbles grow outward from booms. Yes, there were a lot of crummy tech companies that went belly up when the tech bubble burst, but we still have most of the massive growth the tech industry brought us including new corporate titans like Apple and Google. Same with housing. A lot of people and banks lost money on bad paper and buying houses they couldn't afford, but a lot of people did still pay their mortgages and a lot of property will prove to be quality investments if you wait long enough for the market to come back. Even more so if you took advantage of the correction in the market.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
Clinton, he used trickle-up economics.

Clinton used the tech boom. Not to mention that Clinton did basically nothing to alter the culture of deregulation Reagan started. And don't construe that as me being anti-deregulation. Deregulation is a good thing, even if it doesn't guarantee that nothing bad can happen.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
Keep thinking like that and you'll never get that big pile of money you crave...
..2nd rule of climbing to the top - accepting 'the incredible and unbelievable as fact', nothing operates on premises of common (average) thought processes in business (I don't care what your teacher tells you).

There is just too much money in these supposedly game changing technologies that are supposedly being suppressed. Why be a fraction of the oil industry when you could be practically all of a post-oil industry? I'd love to see what numbers you have to indicate that sitting on the answer to all of our problems is less profitable than selling oil at a 4-5% profit margin.

And even if these things are being suppressed, what makes you think that they've been able to keep a secret for so long and continue to do so? Wikileaks, greedy scientists, altruistic scientists, etc. plus simply having to have so many people involved and yet none of these magical devices and energy sources have grown beyond being an urban legend.

There's forward thinking, and then there's being a crazy person.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
You missed that lesson by a cosmic mile..

I don't think so.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
Again, chum change..like building a one of ginormous apartment buildings in Playa Vista, except with oil profits as they are today ... they are paid off in a year (if so desired).

The economic principles of resource extraction are pretty well established. If I can't sell a commodity for more than it costs me to get it, I'll just not bother and leave it where it is.

That basic principle has been in effect for millennia, probably ever since some caveman picked fruit off the low branches before bothering to climb the tree.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
But I like Michael Moore's strategy better, use their tools to berate them at every turn...and 'astop them from destroying our beaches and coastlines.

How well has that worked?

But, that says a lot about you. If you enjoy that sort of thing fine. I won't tell you what movies to watch or not watch (considering your stance on suppressed technology, I should point out that Men In Black is not a documentary) but from this point forward it would be horribly hypocritical for you to disparage Fox News or any other news outlet for being overly conservative. Or overly liberal for that matter.

I know that for many people it's only yellow journalism if you disagree with it, but reality isn't so flexible.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
What I want them to be has nothing to do with it... look at them, hear the words from their mouths they are the stereotypes and worse.

All stereotypes have some element of truth in them. That said, you only watch and listen to the conservatives you like, which means the most outrageous, intolerant, anti-intellectual voices you can find rather than pay attention to anyone reasonable or intelligent. Of course there are conservatives who see no liberals other than Communists who aren't even ashamed of it, but the point is that you should not be trying to climb on that high horse because it will buck you right off.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
Most prefer usage of your denial of 'socialist/marxist/maoist/Muslim/Kenyan' sprinkled with a few racist jokes and insults for good measure.

You seem confident in that assertion. Let's see some numbers.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
same principle would apply here whereas excess generated power would power a back generator station for slow days.

Storing power takes space and money one way or another.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
But is indeed quite rare to have non-windy days along many California beaches.

You dislike the oil rigs, but are fine with wind farms? Wind farms can have a high NIMBY resistance too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2457 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 78):

Who is killing who over oil? Be specific.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 68):
The problem with wind and solar (and any renewable) is that you need fossil fuel back-up plants (in case the wind doesnt blow or the sun doesn't shine), which can add to the cost of developing these wind and solar farms.

You're thinking too traditionally but even so there are plenty of advantages using wind and solar to reduce the amount of fossil needed.

Quoting us330 (Reply 68):
Ethanol and corn fuel is not the solution to our energy problems, because it creates an even bigger problem: increased food prices

Why isn't ethanol part of the solution?

It is clear we should not produce ethanol from corn but it has nothing to do with rising food cost. It has everything to do with other crops being much more efficient.

Quoting us330 (Reply 68):
The holy grail of biofuels is to take a substance w/no demand for use in other forms by humans--this is why there's such an interest in algae.

There is a lot more to the equation.

Let's for a moment pretend corn is a good crop for ethanol and look at this aspect of the argument. Why would using w/o human demand make it better? Is there anything preventing us from growing more corn? Would the alternative crop use land that is used for growing human crop? How much will it cost to grow the alternative crop vs corn?

It really isn't as simple as stating it is better to use some other crop. Not that it has stopped interest organizations from making it the "established truth."


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7703 posts, RR: 21
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2376 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
Let's for a moment pretend corn is a good crop for ethanol and look at this aspect of the argument. Why would using w/o human demand make it better? Is there anything preventing us from growing more corn? Would the alternative crop use land that is used for growing human crop? How much will it cost to grow the alternative crop vs corn?

It really isn't as simple as stating it is better to use some other crop. Not that it has stopped interest organizations from making it the "established truth."

I think that the principal argument against such crops is the availability and quality of cultivable land. The algae-type proposals potentially do away with those problems.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2361 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
Is there anything preventing us from growing more corn?

Only government policy where the US limits the amount of corn grown in the US to ensure prices remain at levels to guarantee well run farms do not go broke.

If conditions allow the crop to exceed planned amounts signficantly, the government will support plowing under a portion of the crop before it is harvested. Farm owners are compensated for the destroyed crop.

If the crop is so large that prices start to drop, the government will purchase corn and stockpile it, removing it from the market to ensure prices do not drop too much. Farmers are guaranteed a price floor - a level below which the price of the crop is not allowed to fall before the government steps in. For example for 2012 - the guaranteed price is $5.70.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/2012_acre_prices_values.xls

The purpose of such subsidies it to deal with the "feast or famine" nature of farming. The average farm size in the US is estimated at 418 acres. However, most family run farms are much smaller, and the larger agri-business farms skew the results.

Also, the 2008 Agriculture Bill moved toward establishing caps on direct subsidies to focus more on small farmers.

The bill was set to expire in 2013 - but I doubt our current Congress can pass another bill this year, so it will likely be extended.

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
Would the alternative crop use land that is used for growing human crop?

If sugar cane is the alternate crop - NO.

Most of the US corn production is not for growing human food. It is used as a 'feed grain' for the production of beef, pork and other meat.

Quoting cmf (Reply 85):
It really isn't as simple as stating it is better to use some other crop.

It is not a debate about using the land for another crop. It is a debate about not taking land out of production such is the current policy with corn. The land which works well for sugar cane is not prime corn growing land.

We have one real world example wher a nation reduced their consumption of oil products as fuel significantly - Brazil.

By any measure - sugar cane is more efficient, more productive per acre, and cheaper to produce than ethanol produced by corn, or use of the remaining biomass to generate power.

I'm not against the usage of corn for ethanol. I'm against the artificial support of the corn ethanol industry by the federal government. The US government subsidies to the corn production industry was near 8 billion dollars in 2005 according to the CBO.

Luckly much of that is changing. The US now has sugar cane ethanol production coming on-line and growing.

We need cane production because the US produced over TWICE the amount ethanol in 2011. The US has less land available for production of a fuel based crop than Brazil - but we have three times as much land devoted to ethanol production as Brazil.

The US uses only 3.7% of its available crop land for ethanol production.

Ethanol produced in the US cost about 37% more than ethanol produced in Brazil per gallon. Much of that higher cost is due to the lower efficiency of the corn biomass.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 86):
I think that the principal argument against such crops is the availability and quality of cultivable land.

The US produces approx 10 billion bushels of corn (2000) of the world's total corn crop of 23 billion bushels. 80% of that crop is used as feed stock for animals. 12% is used as direct consumable food. Ethanol production is the major other usage of corn in the US.

Corn is produced on approx 50% more land than used for wheat production. Soybeans production land is almost equal to corn. The US uses more land to grow hay (grass baled/ stored for later animal consumption) than is uses for wheat.

The US uses about 20% of available quality cultivable land for crop production. Close to 25% of the privately held land in the US is used as grazing land for animals.

In 1990 the US had almost 987 million acres in farm production. In 2000 that number had dropped to nearly 943 million acres.

Here is a really good review of the US system - http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/index.html

Note - much of the highest yield US human food production land is totally dependent upon irrigation to be able to produce crops of any type.

The central valley of California and the southern parts of that state are huge producers of actual food items, not just grains. That industry would not exist without diverting huge percentages of the available water to irrigation.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

For the US currently - water is the major limiting factor in production of corn, or another crop for ethanol.

Most of the productive farm land in the US suffers under a several years long drought which cuts production significantly.

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/monitor.html


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 3
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 87):
The US produces approx 10 billion bushels of corn (2000) of the world's total corn crop of 23 billion bushels. 80% of that crop is used as feed stock for animals. 12% is used as direct consumable food. Ethanol production is the major other usage of corn in the US

Incorrect, the Renewable Fuel Standards imposed by the present administration dictates that 37% of all corn production go to ethanol with massive subsidies.
Which equates to about a 50 cent per gallon of ethanol subsidy for "Big Corn"


Okie


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 79):

Thanks

I didn't find those current numbers.

However, we do have plenty of airable land available greatly increase our US corn production - most of it sitting fallow or in hay.


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2298 times:

Well, gas just went up $0.14 per liter in some parts of metro YVR this weekend - is that Obama's fault too?

Quoting mham001 (Reply 28):
I am thoroughly sick of hearing about how much more it costs in Europe

Canada is not the USA and YVR I believe has the most expensive gas prices in N America and is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live. That being said, as having moved from Europe myself, the cost of living in general is cheaper this side, particularly in the USA - but salaries are also much lower, so its all in perspective.

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 41):
The cost to government of maintaining the massive road/highway system actually warrants much higher gas taxes, even moreso when the cost to the environment is figured in. I'd like to see gas prices double -- it will reduce road use, and encourage people to live closer to work and source locally.

Wow. Checked house prices in downtown Vancouver lately? Even the average town house price in Richmond is around $650,000. So if the government is not going to build a rail link, people will have to drive to work from the suburbs as they can not afford to pay these property prices. Your suggestion will only hurt the economy, as people will still have to get to work, but instead they will not be able to eat out as often, buy that bicycle for the kids, do that reno project in the bathroom, go to the hockey game, take the kids snowboarding, have to cut out that coffee in the morning, drink tap water instead of bottled water and so on and so on. That would be devastating in an already fragile economy where people are having to take these measures anyway. How about the knock on effect of delivering groceries to the store and the host of other consumer stuff delivered to Walmart and everywhere else by truck? Freight, commuting and cost of living prices are high enough as they are thank you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 52):
We shouldn't be serious. Their car, their problem.

Exactly, you pay the price each time you fill up and pay more tax just by buying more fuel more regularly. If there is a justified business need, then the cost is covered. If not, its your choice to spend your money on fuel instead of other things. The government shouldnt dictate how you organize your costs or your personal choices.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2294 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 71):
There is one thing the government should do with fuel taxes and that is to equalize the tax on gasoline and diesel.

Or maybe spend some money developing systems to allow big rigs to use natural gas.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 77):
Only government policy where the US limits the amount of corn grown in the US to ensure prices remain at levels to guarantee well run farms do not go broke.

Last year was a pretty good example of the need to protect farmers (the individuals)

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 78):
Most of the productive farm land in the US suffers under a several years long drought which cuts production significantly.

Last summer I drove to Michigan & back, then down to Dallas & back. I couldn't believe the number of hours we spent driving by dead corn fields.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 81):
Checked house prices in downtown Vancouver lately?

Vancouver is insane. There are houses that look like those hundred dollar houses in Detroit going for over half a million.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 81):
Exactly, you pay the price each time you fill up and pay more tax just by buying more fuel more regularly. If there is a justified business need, then the cost is covered. If not, its your choice to spend your money on fuel instead of other things. The government shouldnt dictate how you organize your costs or your personal choices.

Of course motoring enthusiasts get the shaft. A Viper burns as much fuel as an Escalade but doesn't do nearly as much damage to the roads.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 82):
Or maybe spend some money developing systems to allow big rigs to use natural gas.

If there's money in it someone will do it. I'd be surprised if someone isn't already.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 82):
They're ready to place more sea based rigs if given the authority..that's why building them is chump change.

Because the companies have run the numbers and believe they'll pay off. Cut the price of oil in half and see what happens. All that machinery and all the people used to extract oil doesn't come cheap. If it costs $200 to extract a barrel, I'm going to leave it when the price is under that. This is really not a difficult concept to understand.

Here's the deal you don't get nor will you get until you've started a business and hired some employees...so until you accomplish this, you'll have to life life by what you read in Economics 101.

When you start your own business, everything your teachers lectured and quizzed you... goes right out the window.

First, half the members on this board (if not all) actually believes that Airbus 'gives away' one A380 for each one a carrier buys. Many believe for fact that Boeing gives a way 767s as the line dies down or as compensation, gives a way a 777 for an extremely delayed 787 deliver or some fast horse trading to retain or gain a customer.

If someone dared scream out that Airbus does not do this or that and Boeing would never sell anything below retail... none of you would let it slide. Because you know it goes on and yet you lack any concrete proof. Will Boeing tell you the true numbers on sales and discounts 'No they will not'. They and every large company on the planet mask what they don't want you (or other customers) to know and displace numbers under other accounts to shield their actions. ALL companies do this...even the airlines themselves do it. Do you think Hollywood is the only business that cooks the books??? They may be credited with originating it..but it's an ancient practice that been around since the dawn of time.

So with ANYTHING, the Oil/Energy Barons discloses to you or to anyone for public consumption - is FACT to you ... but it's BS to anyone 'seriously entrenched' in business, any business. It'd trust the word of the late drug kingpin Pablo Escobar over any Oil Baron - any day of the week! When profit is the motivation.. the truth becomes the first casualty in business.

So you stick to what you've read....and I'll rely on what I've seen and done.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
Let's see the numbers. How many Republicans are racist?

For such numbers to obtained, you'd need honest input or disclosure. YOU nor anyone else in America can the racist in the nation to own up to the label. Like the skunk analogy you keep running away from, they think they don't stink and they sure as hell aren't going to admit it.

But the now common saying 'If they are a racist, they are most likely to be Republicans... so we know which party to find them in. Look at the states Obama lost and could not win if his life depended on it.

Every single Southern State ex. VA (true swing) FL. (seniors in fear of GOP 'scapel->SS' plan) won those.

Are you trying to suggest that Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas ... places free of the most ardent racist? Look at the fools they sent to Congress over the last 50 years, the deeper you go back the thicker the and blatant the racism. Just because they don't believe in 'saying what's on their minds' like Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, George Wallace....doesn't mean they aren't there today, they're reborn and repackaged into Strom Thurmon, Jesse Helms, Trent ( didn't know the CCC was racist) Lott, along with...

James L Hart winner 2004 GOP Primary
"vowing that if elected he would work toward keeping "less favored races'' from reproducing or immigrating to the United States"

Haley Barbour - Gov Miss (CCC related past).


State Rep. John Moore - has given at least two speeches to various CCC chapters. When asked about it, Moore said, "Is the NAACP on you-all's hit list? Well, they need to be."

State Rep. Tommy Woods - an admitted CCC member.

State Rep. Charles Sharpe - “Especially on the issue of racial intermarriage. Cows and horses don't mix. I don't want any of my people doing it."

Those people have millions in their core of support and they are ALL Republicans. On the levels of government leading up the offices, there can be no question many like them are waiting in the wings to get their chance to say something stupid. The number of city, county and state officials and judges making racist jokes over email and mailed flyers - all hail from southern or conservative districts.

Of course you're not man enough admit that these people are supported by millions or that these people are even racist would come as no surprise to me and that they are all from the Southern States would tell anyone else with a reasonable sense of history - that the people that reside in these state who vote for these office holders share their views to some extent (in relatively large numbers).

Now try to get true numbers on anything, we can't even get our census correct....and you want an actual accounting of racist GOP members/supports, most of us who aren't .. do know their numbers aren't the joke you try to make it out to be.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
How many are uneducated?

You must have missed the Sarah Palin Book Signing at the Mall video... again, get your counter out.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
How many are anti-intellectual?

The Party that wants Intelligent Design in schools, anti-global warming beliefs and wants to expand the falsehood that Jesus walked with dinosaurs... I'd say 'too many'.. but that's just me.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
And I've never denied the stereotypes. Those people exist, I've seen them on the news.

..that's it, you've seen it on the new??? No parties, social events at school, clubs where varied options emerge?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
What you seem to have trouble coming up with is anything that backs up your assertion that not only do such people exist, but that they make up the majority and core of conservative people.




You watching the news told me all I need to know how you arrive at your assertions...they're someone else's, no 1st hand experience on anything needed or required.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
But, you then should not get insulted if any conservative insinuates that Democrats hate people with money and are just a bunch of Communist, Michael Moore worshiping jackasses.

I don't because I always consider the source... those anti-intellectuals you mentioned above, well there go .. that's kind baseless things they do - whereas their support of racist candidates is sustained by actual ballots and warm racist bodies showing up in elected offices keeping the flame alive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
To say that believing such things in the absence of real data puts you in a glass house makes actual glass houses look like bunkers by comparison.

.from what I'm readng... just getting out of house would do a certain someone a whole lot of good - glass house or not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 82):
6 years
Quoting BN747 (Reply 82):
American one
Quoting BN747 (Reply 82):
1950s

Suffice to say I'm not quite convinced.

....and since you, your books and tv news has you in that corner, it's a safe bet those are the only two things that can convince you of anything. Oh yeah and some data compiled by a data entry clerk - handed to him by another tool who hasn't gone out gotten his hands dirty living life.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 82):
it'd be a far far more welcomed sight than what's there now.

So you just like the look better? Fair enough.

Think here for sec.... the forward thinking thing. Which is more likely to sunk onto the ocean floor when rendered obsolete because dismantling cost would be too great... versus actual dismantling and taken back to land storage and reused in some recycled form.
And which of the two current emit toxic & harmful residue of multiple kinds into the ocean and air ....and which one does not.
Now looks withstanding, that truly was ...was a no brainer.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 82):
Or maybe spend some money developing systems to allow big rigs to use natural gas.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
If there's money in it someone will do it. I'd be surprised if someone isn't already.

Vancouver-based Westport Innovations has been marketing these systems for trucks for many years now. With natural gas prices in the cellar and a huge glut of the stuff, they should be doing a roaring business.

Here's their website:

http://www.westport.com/

Another good possibility that doesn't get much press is GTL - gas-to-liquids. There are processes that will convert natural gas to sulphur-free diesel, and there are a few plants already up and running. The key to economically feasible production is cheap natural gas. Sasol is the industry leader in this and they are apparently close to a decision on a very large GTL plant somewhere in Alberta. The advantage of GTL diesel is it doesn't require any modifications to the transport fleet.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 79):
the Renewable Fuel Standards imposed by the present administration dictates that 37% of all corn production go to ethanol with massive subsidies.

Could you post a link to this requirement?

All I can find is a requirement for a certain number of gallons of ethanol to be produced. Not a percentage of the production.

There are estimates from a restaurant organization that the increase in gallons for 2012 would result in a higher precentage of the corn crop being used for ethanol - if there are no increases in corn production.

Also, for 2013, most of the increase in ethanol production is supposed to come from new plants for sugar cane and sorghum ethanol production, not increases in corn ethanol.


User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
WARNING: non-political rant (if it gets to become economic/ideologic later that's fine, but as far as I'm concerned they are all to blame)
Quoting CometII (Thread starter):
Obama and his administration are incompetent, craven bureaucrats. Incompetent because 5 years in there has been no net improvement in the price of energy.

I thought you said it was non political? This just goes to show you that Republicans and Democrats are more alike than they are different. They are both trying to destroy the middle class - while creating an elite group and the rest dependent on the government. The rich don't need to worry about gas prices, they can afford them. The poor will get their handouts and be dependent- the middle class will be moved into one of the 2 groups - some of the upper middle class will be moved into this "elite" class while just about everyone else will be layed off and dependent on the government

Quoting seb146 (Reply 1):
Government has very little to do with the price of oil and gas.

The Federal Reserve does however. Its their weakening of our dollar that is causing these prices since oil currency is still under the US currency.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

Well, if oil was priced in euros, then you'd be screwed.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3645 posts, RR: 5
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 67):
Who is killing who over oil? Be specific.

We would not be in Afghanistan if not for oil. Iraq too. Twice. Nigeria has a nice war going on over oil profits Libya? Oil. Do you need more?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 75):
Or maybe spend some money developing systems to allow big rigs to use natural gas.

They already do. I heard somewhere last week 15% of big rigs are running NG. If true, that is an amazing turn around.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
YOU nor anyone else in America can the racist in the nation to own up to the label.

blah, blah blah. A load of nonsense based on the notion popular in liberal circles that only whites can be racist. Those people need to get out more.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1986 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 69):
I think that the principal argument against such crops is the availability and quality of cultivable land. The algae-type proposals potentially do away with those problems.

Is there a shortage of land? It is an argument that the incumbents have been very successful in establishing as gospel. It only makes sense if your goal is to block competition.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 70):
Only government policy where the US limits the amount of corn grown in the US to ensure prices remain at levels to guarantee well run farms do not go broke.

If conditions allow the crop to exceed planned amounts signficantly, the government will support plowing under a portion of the crop before it is harvested. Farm owners are compensated for the destroyed crop.

If the crop is so large that prices start to drop, the government will purchase corn and stockpile it, removing it from the market to ensure prices do not drop too much. Farmers are guaranteed a price floor - a level below which the price of the crop is not allowed to fall before the government steps in. For example for 2012 - the guaranteed price is $5.70.

  Doesn't exactly support the escalating cost argument. How about getting more for the money we spend...

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 70):
If sugar cane is the alternate crop - NO.

Most of the US corn production is not for growing human food. It is used as a 'feed grain' for the production of beef, pork and other meat.

Sugar cane isn't the only option. Sugar beat is pretty damn good for producing ethanol. About 10% better than sugar cane and about 100% better than corn.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 70):
I'm not against the usage of corn for ethanol. I'm against the artificial support of the corn ethanol industry by the federal government. The US government subsidies to the corn production industry was near 8 billion dollars in 2005 according to the CBO.

This country is obsessed with corn. We produce so much we use it where other things are much better.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1982 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
Is there a shortage of land? It is an argument that the incumbents have been very successful in establishing as gospel. It only makes sense if your goal is to block competition.

I don't know of a bunch of land suitable for corn crops just sitting vacant. We probably could grow more corn if we really wanted to, but it would take a shift away from other uses.

Plus there are issues like crop rotation too.

Quoting cmf (Reply 84):
This country is obsessed with corn. We produce so much we use it where other things are much better.

We have shitloads of the stuff, that's part of the attraction. Ethanol actually has less energy content than gasoline but is useful because it's cheaper. Other feedstocks may be easier to extract fuel from or yield better fuel, but corn is plentiful and local.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
I don't know of a bunch of land suitable for corn crops just sitting vacant. We probably could grow more corn if we really wanted to, but it would take a shift away from other uses.

Much land very suitable for corn, or other crop production, is currently used as grazing land, to raise hay, or just left fallow waiting for a high enough price crop to become needed.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 82):

Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with oil and everything to do with cleaning up a Cold War mess. There's more to World History than the last 20 years.

[Edited 2013-02-26 04:58:58]

User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3645 posts, RR: 5
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 87):
Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with oil and everything to do with cleaning up a Cold War mess. There's more to World History than the last 20 years.

More nonsense. Nobody would care in any way about the middle east if not for oil. Cold War or not.

We would not be in Afghanistan if not for Bin Laden and 9/11. There would have been no 9/11 if not for our presence in Saudi Arabia. Why were we in Saudi Arabia? Oh. Oil.

We would not have gone into Iraq if not for Saddam overrunning Kuwait. Why did he do that? Oil. This of course then led to Iraq 2.

The notion that we are fighting wars over there for anything besides oil is head-in-the-sand denial.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 88):

We would not be in Afghanistan if not for Bin Laden and 9/11. There would have been no 9/11 if not for our presence in Saudi Arabia. Why were we in Saudi Arabia? Oh. Oil.

We would not have gone into Iraq if not for Saddam overrunning Kuwait. Why did he do that? Oil. This of course then led to Iraq 2.

If it were only that easy.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
I don't know of a bunch of land suitable for corn crops just sitting vacant. We probably could grow more corn if we really wanted to, but it would take a shift away from other uses.

We have plenty of unused land. If we worried about having enough farmland we wouldn't convert so much of it for housing.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
Plus there are issues like crop rotation too.

Right, that is only a problem if you grow corn for fuel...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
We have shitloads of the stuff, that's part of the attraction.

That really is part of the problem

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
Ethanol actually has less energy content than gasoline but is useful because it's cheaper.

Your usual way of picking just one part. Energy content isn't a big issue. If we worried about energy content things would look a lot different.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 85):
but corn is plentiful and local.

We have too much of it and we can use the land to grow better stuff. But as usual this country is not able to change,


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
We have plenty of unused land. If we worried about having enough farmland we wouldn't convert so much of it for housing.

It's worth more as housing, and there's probably no way to improve enough land to cause enough of a positive pressure on crop prices to ever change that.

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
Right, that is only a problem if you grow corn for fuel...

My point is that you can't just say "stop growing soybeans or wheat and grow corn instead because we can make ethanol with it." Switching crops isn't necessarily a trivial matter.

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
That really is part of the problem

No it's not, that's why you use corn in the first place. Being able to make superior fuels out of oil or sugar cane doesn't mean jack if I don't have either of those things. Corn is attractive because there's a lot of it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 90):
We have too much of it and we can use the land to grow better stuff. But as usual this country is not able to change,

Like what exactly? And, let's remember that this isn't the Soviet Union, so farmers can act in their own best interest. If they could switch from growing pedestrian corn to your magic beans and be better off for it, I'm sure they would.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 91):
It's worth more as housing, and there's probably no way to improve enough land to cause enough of a positive pressure on crop prices to ever change that.

We overproduce corn, simple as that. We have plenty of land available for ethanol.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 91):
My point is that you can't just say "stop growing soybeans or wheat and grow corn instead because we can make ethanol with it." Switching crops isn't necessarily a trivial matter.

Farming has been around for a while. We know how to switch between crops.

It also seems you have missed the point that we should not grow corn for ethanol. There are many other more efficient crops. Sugar beat for example. But a lot of land used for growing sugar beat is now used to produce corn instead....

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 91):
No it's not, that's why you use corn in the first place. Being able to make superior fuels out of oil or sugar cane doesn't mean jack if I don't have either of those things. Corn is attractive because there's a lot of it.

You should pay a visit to a farm. Land can be used to grow many different things.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 91):
to your magic beans

  


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 92):
We overproduce corn, simple as that.

In that case why are farmers not producing other things?

Quoting cmf (Reply 92):
Sugar beat for example. But a lot of land used for growing sugar beat is now used to produce corn instead....

Those crops are not necessarily interchangeable. And, if you're going to profess to be an expert on something, you should at least spell it correctly.

And, another not insignificant point is that corn farmers wanting to grow sugar beets are going to have to invest in some new equipment, which is not cheap.

Quoting cmf (Reply 92):
You should pay a visit to a farm.

Grew up with a corn (and soy bean) field in my backyard.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 92):
We overproduce corn, simple as that. We have plenty of land available for ethanol.

We don't overproduce corn. Last year was a prime example of a down year. Do you realize that 88-90% of corn is not consumed directly as food by humans. It is a prime feed for livestock, poultry , fishing stocks, and fuel production.
There is a use for corn, and that is why it is grown.

We do have room for ethanol production, and it can come from sources other than corn as you have pointed out , but due to certain incentives($$$$), corn is the obvious choice.

Quoting CometII (Thread starter):

Nothing is being done about the energy prices (or about the soaring rents in many areas of the country).

There is plenty being done. The economy is improving ,and hybrid/Electric vehicles are coming online more and more, and becoming more of a choice . They are not the overwhelming choice yet, but as they become more widespread, gasoline will go down in price. Some reports I have seen predict 30-50 dollar barrels of oil with in 5 years. Of course there are other reports predicting 200-300 dollar barrels. The real price will be where supply and demand meet, and if demand for oil goes down(hybrids, electrics, ethanol) while supply increases ( Fracking) , there will be a middle to this all.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11657 posts, RR: 15
Reply 94, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1731 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 88):
There would have been no 9/11 if not for our presence in Saudi Arabia. Why were we in Saudi Arabia? Oh. Oil.

Actually, we were in Saudi Arabia because of Gulf War I when the Saudis let us build a base there. That was why Osama bin Laden was pissed. How dare Westerners build on sacred land! Is that base still open? Nope. It closed very soon after 9/11/01.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 88):
We would not have gone into Iraq if not for Saddam overrunning Kuwait. Why did he do that? Oil. This of course then led to Iraq 2.

Yes, the second Iraq war was because of oil. Instead of sending more troops to Pakistand and Afghanistan to get bin Laden, troops were pulled to invade Iraq. And the American people were told that Afghanistan had little to do with 9/11, but it was Iraq.

As far as high gas prices, blame the "job creators" such as Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, and Chevron as well as OPEC and Wall Street. Save OPEC and Wall Street, they are the ones the right-wing are hiding and supporting as "job creators" and we should not tax them at all but, in fact, give them billions in subsidies.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 95, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1686 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
As I've stated multiple times, ethanol yield from corn is low compared to many other crops.

Yes, but low yield does not necessarily correspond with price effective.

Quoting cmf (Reply 96):
Smart money isn't in producing ethanol from corn.

Long term money maybe, but the infrastucture is currently there in terms of growing,harvesting,storage and surplus.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 96, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1656 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 97):
Yes, but low yield does not necessarily correspond with price effective.

No, but it is a major factor.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 97):
Long term money maybe, but the infrastucture is currently there in terms of growing,harvesting,storage and surplus.

How will this bring up food prices? The original claim  


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 97, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1627 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 100):
Higher demand for arable land, higher cost to use it.

Very simple really.

Show there is a shortage of land then. Because without it that argument doesn't hold. Also show the cost to use it is higher.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 100):
The degree to which food price will rise is up for debate and is based upon the supply and demand curves for arable land, but there will be upwards pressure.

Reality check. About 40% of current corn production is used for ethanol. Changing to a crop with roughly double yield and you have same amount of ethanol and 50% of the land available for food and live stock. How can that drive up food costs?


User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2266 posts, RR: 25
Reply 98, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1573 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Due to the amount of deletions, plus the inability of some to engage in a civil conversation, this thread will now be locked.

NZ1
Forum Moderator


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Ever Increasing Gas Prices............ posted Sat Mar 1 2003 21:17:04 by Srbmod
The Truth About Gas Prices posted Tue May 8 2001 17:24:18 by Matt D
The Sky Is Falling! (So. Ill Gas Prices) posted Thu Sep 11 2008 21:13:47 by N6238P
Update: Gas Prices In Your Neck Of The Woods posted Thu Mar 6 2008 08:26:51 by AirCop
What Are The Petrol/gas Prices In Your Town? posted Fri May 19 2006 12:10:32 by Thom@s
What's The Real Reason Behind High Gas Prices? posted Thu Aug 25 2005 16:41:27 by BNAflyer78
Right...so Gas Prices posted Fri May 29 2009 17:35:56 by DocLightning
Economy: Is The Worst Over? posted Fri Apr 3 2009 15:56:53 by DocLightning
What Is Going On With Gas Prices? Up Down Up Down posted Sat Sep 20 2008 11:39:52 by UAL747
Gas Prices Going Down! posted Mon Aug 4 2008 16:42:25 by UAL747