What the price of Gas at your Gas station?

[SFL Cat]

From a 2004 article...

But even as the peak summer driving season winds down, U.S. refiners continue to operate nearly flat out. As of this week, the industry is producing gasoline and other end products at something like 98 percent of capacity. And with the overall growth in demand for motor fuels and heating oil showing no signs of slowing, prices will continue to be driven as much by tight refining capacity as by the recent run-up in crude prices. Heating oil inventories are roughly at average levels for this time of year, but prices continue to climb. That’s due in part to concerns that prices could spike on any interruption in production — anything from a longer-than-scheduled maintenance shutdown to emergency repair or fire.

But the solution — boosting refining capacity to allow a greater margin for error — isn’t easy. There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction. Used refineries currently sell for about 30 to 50 percent of the cost of building a new one, so it’s cheaper to buy an old refinery and upgrade it. Or squeeze a little more gasoline out of the refineries you already own.

Expansion of refining capacity is also made more difficult because oil refineries are a lot more complicated to build and operate than your average widget factory. For starters the raw material — crude oil — has many different properties, from thickness to sulfur content, so not all refineries can blend just any barrel of crude.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

[stevew]

You'd think someone would be manufacturing in and heavily marketing electric/NG conversion kits for popular vehicles. And then a program giving appropriate tax credits or no/low interest loans for converting your commuter car to an electric/NG vehicle.

And the price of Diesel is almost 5 bucks right now, how the hell is that happening? It's gotta be killing off small trucking companies daily.

[CraigSca]

Unfortunately, pure electric vehicles really aren't the answer either - we're then hooked into the power grid each night and burning more fossil fuels, etc. to charge up our "green" electric cars.

[Fidatelo]

I guess it depends what kind of electricity you are using. I'm sure that hydro-electric power and wind-generated power are relatively green sources of energy.

Now coal? Ya maybe not so much.

[st.cronin]

Wind and solar power are only green in that they don't cause pollution, despite which they are not particularly environmentally friendly.

[jeheinz72]

Local gas was $4.17 this AM. Ugh.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Wind and solar power are only green in that they don't cause pollution, despite which they are not particularly environmentally friendly.

I'm honestly confused here. If they aren't polluting, what are they doing? Do you mean in terms of the destruction caused by building the dams for hydro power? Or the materials needed to create the windmills? Or is there something else?

[st.cronin]

Well, think about it this way. Lets say the entire US were to switch over to solar power. How large an area of the earth would have to be deprived of the sun in order to make that work?

Or, wind power: Switch the entire US over to wind power. How much wind are we subtracting from the atmosphere, and how does that affect the weather?

[Fidatelo]

Deprived of the sun? I'm confused, I don't think solar panels steal sunlight from other places...

As for subtracting wind, again, I don't know that windmills subtract wind. They redirect it I guess, and sure, that might have some effects, so I'll give you that. Obviously some studious folks would need to look at that one.

[st.cronin]

Well, think about it - solar panels take solar energy and turn them into electricity. That solar energy has been essentially stolen from the ecosystem. Wind power works the same way - wind is turned into electricity.

I kind of like the idea of mounting solar panels in the asteroid belt, and transporting the energy via space shuttles.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, think about it - solar panels take solar energy and turn them into electricity. That solar energy has been essentially stolen from the ecosystem. Wind power works the same way - wind is turned into electricity.

I kind of like the idea of mounting solar panels in the asteroid belt, and transporting the energy via space shuttles.

Except with solar energy, it is otherwise wasted. It's not like it goes back to the sun and keeps powering it if it isn't sucked up by solar panels.

As for wind, I'm not so sure it takes away the wind. Just like hydro power doesn't remove water from the earth. We just harness the natural movement to generate power. But again, I'm not super familiar with how wind patterns are affected (it's something my wife and I pondered this winter as we drove past giant wind farms near Palm Springs), so I won't go and say they have no negative effect.

[Cringer]

So solar panels would steal much needed solar rays from my roof? Crap, there goes that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Except with solar energy, it is otherwise wasted. It's not like it goes back to the sun and keeps powering it if it isn't sucked up by solar panels.

I am not sure that's true. The suns rays either feed plants, or warm the surface of the earth. I would think disrupting either of those tasks would be environmentally questionable.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I am not sure that's true. The suns rays either feed plants, or warm the surface of the earth. I would think disrupting either of those tasks would be environmentally questionable.

Ok, if there is some type of evidence to support this then I may buy it, but until then I wouldn't give it a thought. If it does have some kind of effect like that I could see it happening in large cities, where the sun's rays bounce off of glass and asphalt to currently increase the temperature a degree or two in those areas.

[rkmsuf]

rickshaws

[Fidatelo]

Solar power has two big advantages over fossil fuels. The first is in the fact that it is renewable; it is never going to run out. The second is its effect on the environment.
While the burning of fossil fuels introduces many harmful pollutants into the atmosphere and contributes to environmental problems like global warming and acid rain, solar energy is completely non-polluting. While many acres of land must be destroyed to feed a fossil fuel energy plant its required fuel, the only land that must be destroyed for a solar energy plant is the land that it stands on. Indeed, if a solar energy system were incorporated into every business and dwelling, no land would have to be destroyed in the name of energy. This ability to decentralize solar energy is something that fossil fuel burning cannot match.


As the primary element of construction of solar panels, silicon, is the second most common element on the planet, there is very little environmental disturbance caused by the creation of solar panels. In fact, solar energy only causes environmental disruption if it is centralized and produced on a gigantic scale. Solar power certainly can be produced on a gigantic scale, too.

Among the renewable resources, only in solar power do we find the potential for an energy source capable of supplying more energy than is used.⁵

Suppose that of the 4.5x10¹⁷ kWh per annum that is used by the earth to evaporate water from the oceans we were to acquire just 0.1% or 4.5x10¹⁴ kWh per annum. Dividing by the hours in the year gives a continuous yield of 2.90x10¹⁰ kW. This would supply 2.4 kW to 12.1 billion people.⁶

This translates to roughly the amount of energy used today by the average American available to over twelve billion people. Since this is greater than the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth, this would be enough energy to supply the entire planet regardless of the population. Unfortunately, at this scale, the production of solar energy would have some unpredictable negative environmental effects. If all the solar collectors were placed in one or just a few areas, they would probably have large effects on the local environment, and possibly have large effects on the world environment. Everything from changes in local rain conditions to another Ice Age has been predicted as a result of producing solar energy on this scale. The problem lies in the change of temperature and humidity near a solar panel; if the energy producing panels are kept non-centralized, they should not create the same local, mass temperature change that could have such bad effects on the environment.



-- http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/feneric/solar.html

[Grammaticus]

synthetic oil

[molson]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It's all happened before. As a kid, I remember gas at 35 cents a gallon before the oil crisis in the mid 70s, and prices shooting up over $1 per gallon.

The scary thing is that there's really no reason for these prices that compare what was going on in the 70s. The oil price increased about 5X because of an OPEC embargo. They've increased 6X in the last few years because of increased demand and a weak dollar.

Where would oil be with a similar 70s embargo today?

A couple of years ago the government released a report describing potential the economic impact if there were simultaneous terrorist attacks on oil interests worldwide, which would hypothetically cause $100 oil. We've reached $135 in a blink without any of that.

I'm not joining up with the doomsday people just yet but the numbers are pretty scary and unlike anything we've ever seen.

And even if we're not talking civilization-changer at the moment, it's hard to see anything but a major, ugly transition in the next decade or so. Alternative energy is great, but it'll will take a LONG time to fully implement any real alternatives on the scale where they make any difference.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Unfortunately, pure electric vehicles really aren't the answer either - we're then hooked into the power grid each night and burning more fossil fuels, etc. to charge up our "green" electric cars.

Except that small internal combustion engines are much less efficient than large power plant ones. You sacrifice a ton of efficiency for size so that it fits in a car.

SI

[Buccaneer]

I look at the gas bill for my vehicle every month and it is running consistently at around $45. That's more than it used to be but still not bad at all. The reason is that long ago, I purposely chose to live within a short commute (5 miles) to work. In the past year or two, I also chose not to "run around town". There are only five places that I would go to: grocery store, Walgreens, Home Depot, Target and Office Depot; and each of those stores are along the way home from work. If I want or need something that is not at those five stores, I would buy it on-line. Conservation.

[rjolley]

Lowest gas price on the road between Greenville, SC and Atlanta: $3.57 outside of Greenville. That's where I'll be filling up on the trip home tomorrow.

[Lathum]

3.99 here

[duckman]

$3.779 in Edmond, OK.

[billethius]

$4.15 just south of Seattle. I sure am happy I work within 4 miles of my house and telecommute twice per week.

[KWhit]

3.97

[stevew]

3.99 pretty much everywhere.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I look at the gas bill for my vehicle every month and it is running consistently at around $45. That's more than it used to be but still not bad at all. The reason is that long ago, I purposely chose to live within a short commute (5 miles) to work. In the past year or two, I also chose not to "run around town". There are only five places that I would go to: grocery store, Walgreens, Home Depot, Target and Office Depot; and each of those stores are along the way home from work. If I want or need something that is not at those five stores, I would buy it on-line. Conservation.

I am very glad I made the decision to move into the city 4 years ago.

And buying online, speaking from an environmentalist standpoint, is not very healthy. It is better to go to a store that receives a trailer of goods than for a large truck to drive to everyone's home. However, I don't know how that weighs against you driving your vehicle to stores spread around town.

[Masked]

$4.25 - Held at 3.99 for about a week, but once one station went over $4 they all followed rapidly with large jumps.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I am very glad I made the decision to move into the city 4 years ago.

And buying online, speaking from an environmentalist standpoint, is not very healthy. It is better to go to a store that receives a trailer of goods than for a large truck to drive to everyone's home. However, I don't know how that weighs against you driving your vehicle to stores spread around town.

I believe it would be better conservation because a single truck can make multiple deliveries (FedEx, UPS, USPS) as oppose to multiple cars making single trips, generally.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I believe it would be better conservation because a single truck can make multiple deliveries (FedEx, UPS, USPS) as oppose to multiple cars making single trips, generally.

But they use a lot more fuel than a small car and travel farther distances in some cases. Not sure. I walk to most stores, personally, so I don't bother much with trying to figure it out.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Masked

$4.25 - Held at 3.99 for about a week, but once one station went over $4 they all followed rapidly with large jumps.

Yeah, the 20 cent jumps over 3 days are starting to get really fuckin old.

[Rizon]

I paid $4.379 for premium this morning. Just now at 10pm I saw it was already up to $4.44. WTF.

[duckman]

Gas prices has dropped .22 the past two days. We're down to $3.559.

[stevew]

Falling, although kind of slower than I'd like. Any is drop is nice, though, and it helps me out more than most. We're down to about 3.89.

I guess in the whole scheme of things, it would have to go down to about 2-2.50 before I would get any kind of noticeable savings.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I don't purchase gas, but did notice the local station at $4.29 for reg unleaded the other day.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I don't purchase gas, but did notice the local station at $4.29 for reg unleaded the other day.

Do you just steal it? Or make it? I'm confused.

[Qwikshot]

It's at 3.99 here...I'm sure it'll be around 5 by midsummer.

[Lorena]

it's been 3.85 here for almost a week.

[Fidatelo]

Haha, it's only $1.29 here! You Americans are getting screwed!

Oh wait...

[Philliesfan980]

There was a pretty good article in the WSJ a few days ago that explained a good chunk of the $130 a barrell price is due to our declining currency. If our dollar was as strong as it was a few years ago, it would be more like $80-90 a barrel.

[ISiddiqui]

I just remembered this article:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...gh-gas-prices/

June 18, 2007, 9:40 am
Hurray For High Gas Prices!

By Steven D. Levitt

For a long time I have felt the price of gasoline in the United States was way too low. Pretty much all economists believe this. Greg Mankiw blogged back in October about the many reasons why we should raise gas taxes.

The reason we need high gas taxes is that there are all sorts of costs associated with my driving that I don’t pay — someone else pays them. This is what economists call a “negative externality.” Because I don’t pay the full costs of my driving, I drive too much. Ideally, the government could correct this problem through a gas tax that aligns my own private incentive to drive with the social costs of driving.

Three possible externalities associated with driving are the following:
a) My driving increases congestion for other drivers;
b) I might crash into other cars or pedestrians;
c) My driving contributes to global warming.

If you had to guess, which of those three considerations provides the strongest justification for a bigger tax on gasoline?

The answer, at least based on the evidence I could find, may surprise you.


The most obvious one is congestion. Traffic jams are a direct consequence of too many cars on the road. If you took some cars away, the remaining drivers could get places much faster. From Wikipedia’s page on traffic congestion:

The Texas Transportation Institute estimates that in 2000 the 75 largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of delay, resulting in 5.7 billion US gallons (21.6 billion liters) in wasted fuel and $67.5 billion in lost productivity, or about 0.7% of the nation’s GDP.

This particular study doesn’t tell us what we really need to know for estimating how big the gas tax should be (we want to know how much adding one driver to the mix affects lost productivity), but it does get to the point that, as a commuter, I’m better off if you decide to call in sick to work.

A more subtle benefit of fewer drivers is that there would be fewer crashes. Aaron Edlin and Pinar Mandic, in a paper I was proud to publish in the Journal of Political Economy, argue convincingly that each extra driver raises the insurance costs of other drivers by about $2,000. Their key point is that, if my car is not there to crash into, maybe a crash never happens. They conclude that the appropriate tax would generate $220 billion annually. So, if they are right, reducing the number of crashes is a more important justification for a gas tax than reducing congestion. I’m not sure I believe this; it certainly is a result I never would have guessed to be true.

How about global warming? Every gallon of gas I burn releases carbon into the atmosphere, presumably speeding global warming. If you can believe Wikipedia’s entry on the carbon tax, the social cost of a ton of carbon put into the atmosphere is about $43. (Obviously there is a huge standard of error on this number, but let’s just run with it.) If that number is right, then the gas tax needed to offset the global warming effect is about 12 cents per gallon. According to this National Academy of Sciences report, American motor vehicles burn about 160 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel each year. At 12 cents a gallon, that implies a $20 billion global warming externality. So relative to reducing congestion and lowering the number of accidents, fighting global warming is a distant third in terms of reasons to raise the gas tax. (Not that $20 billion is a small number…it just highlights how high the costs are from congestion and accidents.)

Combining all these numbers, along with the other reasons why we should tax gas (e.g. wear and tear on roads), it seems easy to justify raising the tax on gas by at least $1 per gallon. In 2002 (the year I could easily find data for), the average tax was 42 cents per gallon, or maybe only one-third of what it should be.

High gas prices act just like taxes, except that they are more transitory and the extra revenue goes to oil producers, refiners, and distributors instead of to the government.

My view is that, rather than bemoaning the high price of gas, we should be celebrating it. And, if any presidential candidate should come out in favor of a $1 per gallon tax on gas, vote for that candidate.

[Lorena]

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Haha, it's only $1.29 here! You Americans are getting screwed!

Oh wait...

I'm sick of hearing this from/about Europeans.

"One big reason for the difference is that European governments put a much higher tax burden on fuel than the U.S. does. State and federal taxes currently make up just 11% of the pump price in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration; in France and the U.K., taxes account for an average of around 70%."

The US's issue is a fundamental supply/demand issue. In the UK, they've chosen to tax the fuck out of gas to pay for social programs and the like.

[Fidatelo]

Canada is not in Europe.

[Ksyrup]

This is true!

The perils of multi-boarding strike again.

I think in Canada your tax % is, what, 33% or something like that?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Do you just steal it? Or make it? I'm confused.

If you must know, I was dining at White Castle when I saw the price of gas so I do make a form of it.

In reality, I do not own a car so I do not purchase gas.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

If you must know, I was dining at White Castle when I saw the price of gas so I do make a form of it.

In reality, I do not own a car so I do not purchase gas.

Do you own a lawn mower? A weed-whacker? A motorboat? Are you a communist?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This is true!

The perils of multi-boarding strike again.

I think in Canada your tax % is, what, 33% or something like that?

Of which tax do you speak? We have many.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

This is true!

The perils of multi-boarding strike again.

I think in Canada your tax % is, what, 33% or something like that?

Dola,

And what is this multi-boarding? Is it like water-boarding? Do I need to cancel my trip to Minneapolis this summer?

[bob]

Oil prices shot up nearly $11 a barrel and settled today at a record $138.54 -- driven by geopolitical jitters, a dollar decline stemming from a weak jobs report and a forecast that oil would hit $150 by July 4.

---

That should be good for a real quick 30 - 40 cent hike in the next day or two.