News Is High Gasoline Pricing a Catalyst for Clean Energy Transition?

[Ivan Seeking]

Although I realize that the price of gas hits many of America's working poor the hardest, it is imperative that we wean ourselves from oil; and soon. My fear is that we will wait too long and will eventually be forced to engage in energy wars, or worse, because we will have no choice. As the world demand increases and supplies dwindle, there are difficult times ahead.

We now have maturing options to fossil fuels, some of which are clean such as the ideal Hydrogen based technolgies, and other more practical short term options that are relatively clean such as ethanol, biodiesel, salt-water algae extracts, biomass conversion techniques, clean coal, and so on.

The majority of mainstream energy alternatives are viable when gasoline hits $5.00 a gallon; at least this has been a common claim found for ten years or more. We are close to that price now, so I see this as a huge opportunity to act in our own best long term interest - to rush in the new OPEC-free era of US politics.

Edit:

More than $25 billion a year goes for Persian Gulf imports alone.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp
In principle this would all go back into the US economy.

 

[scott1]

I do partially agree.We do need to swicth to form fossile fules.But I don't like it how gas compines are makeing record profits and it's also hard for the airline industry gas is very expensive for them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We can make these huge profits the death rattle of big oil.

 

[EL]

My fear is that we will wait too long and will eventually be forced to engage in energy wars, or worse, because we will have no choice.

I agree, and in some sense the energy war has already started. At least according to some people the war in Iraq is mainly about oil.

(And the $5.00 a gallon was hit here many years ago, so we're already there...)

 

[dduardo]

If you thought the gasoline price was crazy, BP is now offering 102 Octane in the UK for $20 British Pounds($16.32 US Dollars) per gallon:

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/25/bp-launches-16-a-gallon-fuel/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree, and in some sense the energy war has already started. At least according to some people the war in Iraq is mainly about oil.

(And the $5.00 a gallon was hit here many years ago, so we're already there...)

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and propelled us into WWII because we cut off their oil supplies. Already we can trace many or even most of the world's biggest problems and events, to oil.

See also:
http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/

 

[Astronuc]

I see that the transition will be quick. Big oil has a huge investment to recover (and huge profits to protect).

We certainly can switch to alternative is everyone is will to pay higher prices - and its not only gasoline, but just about every product is affected by higher energy prices due to increased transportation costs.

Then again, the US may be forced to switch - like it or not.

Apparently there is pressure to start exploring off shore in currently off-limits sites in Ca, the Gulf (near Ga and Fl coasts), and on the Atlantic Coast near Virginia/Carolinas, and off course, there's ANWR.

However, all that would add little to domestic production at current consumption levels, and it would take years to bring into production.

 

[edward]

I have a gut feeling that the same people who control and profit from fossil fuels will be in control and profiting from alternative energy sources.

It is very ironic that the big oil companies are the only ones who have the money to develop (or discourage the developement) of alternative energy sources.

 

[Pengwuino]

The big oil companies are probably on the fore-front of developing alternative energies for the very reason everyone blindly hates them! Profit! They have the money, they have the infrastructure, they know the market better then some $50 million outfit in Bakersfield (i don't mean anyone in particular) does and they can/will be the first to get to it. Thankfully liberals are doing their all to destroy the big oil companies, the 1 chance of getting mass transportation of say, hydrogen "gas"...

 

[scott1]

I agree, and in some sense the energy war has already started. At least according to some people the war in Iraq is mainly about oil

What they say is not turehttps://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=944849&postcount=17"
It should noted that I used 10 gallons but it's actully 42 gallons per barrel but
it's still not cost effictive.

 

[Manchot]

The big oil companies are probably on the fore-front of developing alternative energies for the very reason everyone blindly hates them! Profit!

I love how you place so much faith in the oil companies who are most likely engaging in illegal price fixing. They have no incentive profit-wise to introduce alternative energies. You can only conserve gasoline up to a certain point, which means that the demand for gas is inelastic. Therefore, consumers have no choice but to pay the piper, regardless of how expensive gas becomes. The only thing stopping gas prices from shooting up to $10 or $20 a gallon is that their price fixing would become obvious. Even as oil and gas prices climb higher and higher, they'll continue to make a healthy profit (as this past year proved).

Moreover, many alternative energy sources lend themselves to more competitive markets, which means reduced profit for Big Oil. Oil is concentrated in the hands of a few companies because of the high economies of scale. They have to speculate in foreign countries, deal with the locals, drill the oil, pipe the oil, process it into gas, and distribute it. There is no possible way that someone short of a billionaire could start an oil company from scratch. On the other hand, if something like ethanol or biodiesel became widely used, you'd have local farmers producing the raw material (eliminating the need for expensive foreign oil rigs), local factories processing the material into the appropriate form. Hell, biodiesel can be (and has been) made literally made in individuals' homes, with an investment of a few thousand dollars.

Putting it in economic terms, moving from oil to biodiesel would change the energy market from an oligopoly to a nearly perfectly competitive market. Not only would this mean a huge reduction in profits, it would also mean that the big oil companies would essentially dwindle down to nothing.

But yes, I'm sure that they have an incentive to innovate.

 

[Pengwuino]

I love how you place so much faith in the small cap companies involved in alternative energies. You can NOT charge a whole lot more for gasoline (look at europe, and no, there is no price-fixing contrary to popular belief, prices are set by local stations) and ethanol is hardly the future. It's pretty much a temporary fix towards hydrogen energy which cannot be created by someone inside their house. They pretty much know they'll run out of product soon enough and the first that can supply hydrogen to the market will make tremendous profits since $7 equivalency-gallon of hydrogen just can't lose to some $10 gasoline, especially when governments aren't as likely to put a 50% tax on it like they do with gasoline.

 

[Tzemach]

LPG is becoming increasingly popular here in Australia, probably because the price is one third that of petrol ($1.40 per litre = about $6.50 per gallon). Australia's NW shelf has sufficient LPG reserves to supply the World for an estimated 300 years, then all us Aussies can be as rich as Arabs. The same old oil companies of course will handle distribution so the price will soon go up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The big oil companies are probably on the fore-front of developing alternative energies for the very reason everyone blindly hates them! Profit! They have the money, they have the infrastructure, they know the market better then some $50 million outfit in Bakersfield (i don't mean anyone in particular) does and they can/will be the first to get to it. Thankfully liberals are doing their all to destroy the big oil companies, the 1 chance of getting mass transportation of say, hydrogen "gas"...

The point is to make energy a domestic issue. There will always be the ultra-rich, but I think the diversity of options will eventually force energy back to a free market [not limited to only four or five companies]. We see this already with the mom and pop alternative companies, such as with Bio-Willie.

 

[Anttech]

(look at europe, and no, there is no price-fixing contrary to popular belief, prices are set by local stations)

errmmm... every heard of OPEC?

 

[daveb]

While it's true that local stations are the ones who determine the final price, the oil companies charge them a certain amount for the gasoline itself. In order to survive, the stations must by necessity increase prices as they are charged more, so ultimately, the oil companies can control prices.

 

[Manchot]

I love how you place so much faith in the small cap companies involved in alternative energies. You can NOT charge a whole lot more for gasoline (look at europe, and no, there is no price-fixing contrary to popular belief, prices are set by local stations) and ethanol is hardly the future. It's pretty much a temporary fix towards hydrogen energy which cannot be created by someone inside their house. They pretty much know they'll run out of product soon enough and the first that can supply hydrogen to the market will make tremendous profits since $7 equivalency-gallon of hydrogen just can't lose to some $10 gasoline, especially when governments aren't as likely to put a 50% tax on it like they do with gasoline.

The gasoline station market is considerably more competitive than the gasoline-producing market, but that's not saying much. Most of the gas stations you see are Mobils, Texacos, Chevrons, BPs, Shells, or Phillips 66. Surprise, surprise, when someone says "Big Oil," they are usually referring to ExxonMobil, Chevron Corporation, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, and ConocoPhillips (notice a correlation?). The smaller gasoline station companies which are not affiliated with any of the Big Oil corporations must remain competitive to stay in business, but considering that their suppliers are their primary competitors, they are manipulated into paying up to the point where they cannot undercut their competitors. So, while Big Oil can claim all they want that local markets set prices, this is certainly not the case.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

In the UK we pay a tad under $6.80 per gallon(taking into account the US's smaller gallon) I don't see us clamouring for hydrogen fuel and I doubt the US will until the price becomes considerably higher than it is now. The US should feel glad there oil is so cheap

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I had to laugh at the logic used by a reporter last night. He was trying to make the point that local stations have no incentive to engage in price gouging. The logic was that the station owners primarily make money from the mini-marts found inside most stations. If they raise their gas prices, the reporter reasoned, people wouldn't have as much money to spend inside.

 

[dduardo]

On NPR today there was a call in from a gasoline station owner and he said he makes about 10 cents per gallon in profit.

If that is true, that means if he has 150,000 customers per year (~14 customers per hour) who buy 15 gallons of gasoline he'll be making a profit of $187,500 per year.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Insurance, EPA inspections, taxes, employees, advertising, loan payments, building and land costs...

 

[Astronuc]

On NPR today there was a call in from a gasoline station owner and he said he makes about 10 cents per gallon in profit.

If that is true, that means if he has 150,000 customers per year (~14 customers per hour) who buy 15 gallons of gasoline he'll be making a profit of $187,500 per year.

That maybe EBIDTA.

 

[russ_watters]

To Penguino and Manchot:

Actually, it is more up to the car companies to provide the alternatives. One of the main reasons Japanese cars are outselling American cars today is because the gas price/shortage problems in the '70s got people buying small, energy efficient cars. In the '80s and '90s, gas prices went down to historic lows and so the Big3 sold a lot of SUVs, but people who bought cars still mostly bought Japanese cars. With gas prices going up again, the Big3 have a simple choice: produce more efficient cars or go bankrupt. They are already 5 years behind on hybrids, so they are off to a bad start...

Fuel efficiency is only a temporary solution to the problem, but it would help a lot and it isn't that much of a stretch to raise average fuel efficiency by 30% or so.

If today's vehicles were the same, in terms of average weight and speed, as those in 1981, but had today's more fuel-efficient engines and transmissions, they would, theoretically, see a 30.5 percent improvement in fuel economy, according the EPA.

That would be a heckuva good start.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/01/Autos/fuel_efficiency_trends/index.htm

In any case, being a capitalist, I agree with Ivan's central premise: capitalist market forces are what is required to push the needed changes.

 

[BobG]

On NPR today there was a call in from a gasoline station owner and he said he makes about 10 cents per gallon in profit.

If that is true, that means if he has 150,000 customers per year (~14 customers per hour) who buy 15 gallons of gasoline he'll be making a profit of $187,500 per year.

I doubt very many gas stations makes that big of a profit.

I wouldn't mind owning an oil company for about 2 minutes. Exxon Mobile had first quarter profits of 8.4 billion dollars. That's a little over $1000 per second.

 

[ray b]

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

the value of a dollar was pegged to gold but that was ended
the new international system pegged the dollar to oil

'''n 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.'''

but iraq wanted to shift to euro based prices
that may be the real reason behind the war with iraq
and now the threat of war with iran

''''The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush’s Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.'''

note the timing of the iran switch and the resent price spike

'''The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:'''

I think the BuSh war plans real root cause is now known
not oil or WMDs but the value of the dollar

 

[Art]

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

the value of a dollar was pegged to gold but that was ended
the new international system pegged the dollar to oil

'''n 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.'''

A good article but it omits some very pertinant reasons as to why the world's major economies are not yet ready to sink the US dollar.

In no particular order of importance some factors to consider are;

1) The only serious alternative currency is the euro but the european central bank is not currently set up to accept the challenge. The euroland bond market is still tiny compared to the US treasury market. It would take many years to develop to the point where it could become a serious competitor.

2) The major economies have massive dollar reserve holdings and although these are being 'taxed' annually by the US the alternative is to take a massive hit by collapsing the US dollar.

3) In the late 70s many countries dumped US dollars in protest of Carter's foreign policies. America responded by increasing interest rates to 20% triggering a consumate interest hike around the world resulting in a global recession and mass unemployment. Presumably the US would do the same again if the dollar became seriously threatened.

4) The US spends ~$650 billion a year on defence whereas the entire european community combined spends only ~$75 billion. Given that the US has already shown itself willing to use their agencies and armed forces in defence of their 'empire' it is unlikely many countries will be rushing to be the first to stick their heads over the parapets.

Over time an Iranian oil bourse denominated in euros could indeed be a threat to the US but for that very reason it will never be allowed to develop whether by the US exerting pressure on potential customers or by the US exerting a more 'direct form of pressure' on Iran.

 

[selfAdjoint]

) In the late 70s many countries dumped US dollars in protest of Carter's foreign policies. America responded by increasing interest rates to 20% triggering a consumate interest hike around the world resulting in a global recession and mass unemployment. Presumably the US would do the same again if the dollar became seriously threatened.

What countries were those, and what policies?

 

[Art]

What countries were those, and what policies?

Carter promoted human rights as the cornerstone of his foreign policy. Inevitably this brought him into conflict with the USSR and it's eastern european allies leading to the US cutting off grain exports and eventually to the US boycott of the Moscow olympics. He also criticised many other countries human rights records including Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Uganda and then of course there was Iran. He even criticised american allies such as S Korea. In fact conservative republicans like Jeanne Kirkpatrick used these 'attacks undermining US allies' against Carter in the 1980 election. Even european leaders of traditional american allies such as Giscard and Helmut Schmidt of France and Germany were reputed to hate Carter although in this latter case the strained relationship was due to what the europeans saw as american interference in their european domestic economic policies.. resulting in what was deemed 'malicious' manipulation of the US dollar by France.

To support the falling dollar Carter brought in Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve in 1979. In October 1979 Volcker boosted the dollar by allowing interest rates in the US to rise some 300% in weeks, to well over 20%. This ultimately led to a global recession.

 

[SOS2008]

I agree high prices at the pump may finally force development of alternative, and hopefully cleaner energy that is produced domestically. Even countries like Brazil have done better than the U.S.

I also agree it is sad that the consumer must be hit with more inflation in order for this to take place, especially when it's not necessary. The current high prices are due to speculative trading (beyond reasonable futures hedging) and ever increasing profits for large oil companies that to date have invested little if any of these profits into R&D for alternative energy. The public should be angry and fed up with this kind of greed.

One suggestion on PBS this evening is to impose a windfall tax with the revenue going to develop alternative energy. Certainly subsidies/tax breaks, or paying royalties to oil companies when they drill on federal land (WTF?), must end.

In the meantime, one may notice American auto makers also have been negligent. Low mileage or alternative fuel vehicles are coming from Japan, not domestic companies. SUVs are being discounted like crazy right now. In his pow-wow with the major auto makers (including Chrysler), I hope Bush tells them there will be no more subsidies to bail them out unless it is toward cheaper, cleaner, alternative fuels.

Nonetheless it is too little too late regarding an issue that has been debated for decades. No doubt the consumer/tax payer will pay the price to play catch up. That's sad and unfortunate.

 

[motai]

Although I realize that the price of gas hits many of America's working poor the hardest, it is imperative that we wean ourselves from oil; and soon.

Yes but that means that future oil executives won't have as nice of a retirement as this guy: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=117966

I don't know whose idea it was to have most American cars have such low fuel efficiency, but it certainly was a rather bad choice...

 

[franznietzsche]

In the UK we pay a tad under $6.80 per gallon(taking into account the US's smaller gallon) I don't see us clamouring for hydrogen fuel and I doubt the US will until the price becomes considerably higher than it is now. The US should feel glad there oil is so cheap

How many people commute more than 30 miles to work everyday in London? Now, how many could afford to do that if there was almost zero public transportation in London?

More than 3 million americans have 90 minute commutes to work. Probably close to that many in Los Angeles County alone drive more than 25 miles each way to work every day. When both my dad and I had to commute more than 50 miles to work every day it cost us almost $4,000 a year each. And we weren't driving gas guzzling SUVs either (not that my car was particularly fuel efficient anyway, Chrysler Sebring). Its damn expensive.

 

[Anttech]

How many people commute more than 30 miles to work everyday in London? Now, how many could afford to do that if there was almost zero public transportation in London?

Actually Millions do, London is too expensive for the majority of people to live in, and thus people live outside London and commute. There is a serious problem in London where people cannot live near to the place they work. One example is Nurses, who cannot live near to Hospitals in the center of London...

 

[Astronuc]

Actually Millions do, London is too expensive for the majority of people to live in, and thus people live outside London and commute. There is a serious problem in London where people cannot live near to the place they work. One example is Nurses, who cannot live near to Hospitals in the center of London...

Same problem for many in San Francisco and cities and towns in Silicon Valley, where some houses are $500,000 - $1,000,000's. Nursing staff, emergency people, and teachers cannot afford housing!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One thing that could be done is to strongly encourage telecommuting. I know that companies such as Dell are doing this more and more [caught the sales agent's dog barking while on the phone] but I am sure that millions of people in the US alone could simply stop commuting, as the norm.

Also, the time spend idle in trafffic is a huge liability. If work hours were staggered to allow better traffic flow - avoiding impulse loads - a great deal of gasoline would be saved. We had the numbers for this in another thread, IIRC. And in many cases this would be a piece of cake. Factories with large populations of workers often work 24-7. So the hours chosen for shift changes are mostly arbitrary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is another mom and pop company. They [or a local competitor?] say that sales are up 300%.
http://www.ethanolstill.com/

It seems that Tennessee is particularly well suited for this particular industry.

 

[franznietzsche]

Actually Millions do, London is too expensive for the majority of people to live in, and thus people live outside London and commute. There is a serious problem in London where people cannot live near to the place they work. One example is Nurses, who cannot live near to Hospitals in the center of London...

You completely ignored the second part of my statement. Thank you. Be on your merry.

I love when people ignore my actual point.

There is a strong Public transportation system around London, you don't have to drive. There is no such thing in southern california. You have to drive. When I worked in San Fernando I would have to drive 50 miles to the office. 5 of the 8 stores we ran from that office were more than 20 miles from there, and I had to drive to them semi-regularly as well. At one point for about three weeks I went through a full tank of gas every day, driving more then 300 miles. It would be unaffordable with UK gas prices, as there is no alternative to driving. In London, you have an alternative. That's my point.

 

[loseyourname]

Same problem for many in San Francisco and cities and towns in Silicon Valley, where some houses are $500,000 - $1,000,000's. Nursing staff, emergency people, and teachers cannot afford housing!

The public transit in and around San Fran, though, is terrific. The BART goes everywhere, and doesn't take forever. The situation is far different where franz is referring to.

The odd thing about Los Angeles, though, is that there are more than enough low-income neighborhoods in the inner-city that entry-level working class people can afford to live near their work if they work in the city. It's the middle-class and upper-class folks that flee to the suburbs and subsequently have to make long commutes. Of course, in some parts of the city, you don't even have to live far away to have a long commute. I used to work at the California Science Center across the street from the USC campus, which was about 20 miles from where I lived, and it took an hour and a half to get there every morning. I was averaging around 13 mph on the interstate because traffic is so heavy. In contrast, a guy I have a robotics class with this semester commutes about an hour and fifteen minutes every day from 70 miles away.

The traffic system is just completely out of whack in parts of the US. New Jersey has to be the worst I've seen, with all of two north/south highways in the state that consistently have more than two lanes. Every other road is designed to handle the average car load from the 1940s.

 

[Anttech]

You completely ignored the second part of my statement. Thank you. Be on your merry.

I love when people ignore my actual point.

There is a strong Public transportation system around London, you don't have to drive. There is no such thing in southern california. You have to drive. When I worked in San Fernando I would have to drive 50 miles to the office. 5 of the 8 stores we ran from that office were more than 20 miles from there, and I had to drive to them semi-regularly as well. At one point for about three weeks I went through a full tank of gas every day, driving more then 300 miles. It would be unaffordable with UK gas prices, as there is no alternative to driving. In London, you have an alternative. That's my point.

I won't rise to you childish reply.

Public transport is VERY EXPENSIVE, A large majority of people drive because it turns out cheaper to do so, with the UK vastly more expensive petrol prices, and on top of that the new congestion charges. London is gridlock during rush hour, just like LA. The M25 is known as the biggest carpark in Europe. The geographic size of London, is smaller that LA county granted, but the population of London and its surrounding county is more than LA.

Anyway you missed my point that even with higher petrol prices people still drive to work. As you already concieded your car is not very fuel efficent: this is the difference. People here will drive far more efficent cars, poluting far less. As your petrol prices increase the trend in the US will be the same as here, and its a good trend IMO.

 

[Astronuc]

I used to work at the California Science Center across the street from the USC campus, which was about 20 miles from where I lived, and it took an hour and a half to get there every morning. I was averaging around 13 mph on the interstate because traffic is so heavy. In contrast, a guy I have a robotics class with this semester commutes about an hour and fifteen minutes every day from 70 miles away.

That's insane! But then I have seen pretty much the same in Houston.

The traffic system is just completely out of whack in parts of the US. New Jersey has to be the worst I've seen, with all of two north/south highways in the state that consistently have more than two lanes. Every other road is designed to handle the average car load from the 1940s.

Parts are pretty bad, and if I have to travel to NYC or NJ, I tend to do so very early in the morning, or middle of the day, or at night. I avoid most areas between 0600-0900, 1500-1900.

As for Public Transportation in major metropolitan areas. It works IF one lives along the corridors served by Public Transport, otherwise it is largely impractical.

I used to 47 miles from my office - I drove at least 94 miles/day - excluding side trips. In good weather, I could to one way in about 50-55 minutes, on a winding parkway with hills (and poorly banked curves). If it rained or snowed, that trip could be 1.5 - 3 hrs one way. I looked at taking Public Transport. I had two choices - take a bus (20-30 minutes), wait at train station (variable), take train (1 hr), wait at train station (variable), take bus (20-30 minutes). It would take about 2-3 hrs to get to or from work, or 4-6 hrs/day. Some people do that - but I think that's insane. And I lose flexibility - I go when the PT goes. If I had to be at the office at 0800, then I'd have to leave home between 0500-0600, and at night, I'd leave the office at 0500 and get home between 1900 and 2000 - or 2100.

5 of the 8 stores we ran from that office were more than 20 miles from there, and I had to drive to them semi-regularly as well. At one point for about three weeks I went through a full tank of gas every day, driving more then 300 miles.

I imagine the same would be true in London, unless the stores are located along the PT corridors. Driving 300 miles in one day seems rather impractical, and certainly using a full tank of gas is expected. It sounds like a matter of logistics. What did one need to do at the stores that could not have been done by computer and a comm link (e.g. internet)?

--------------------------------

Anyway, I now live in the countryside, 6.5 miles from my office, which is in a small city with a population of less than 30,000 - and it takes me ~12-14 minutes to get there.

 

[daveb]

Back when I lived in SoCal, my office was at the west end of the San Fernando Valley (Woodland Hills). I managed to find a place I could afford only 8 miles away (Encino), too far to bike (in an office you can't really come in covered in sweat), and it still took over 45 minutes to get there (more if I'd had to take public transportation). It isn't just the long distance commutes.

Now in Columbus, I'll be about the same distance, but it will only take about 15 minutes.

 

[BobG]

Carter promoted human rights as the cornerstone of his foreign policy. Inevitably this brought him into conflict with the USSR and it's eastern european allies leading to the US cutting off grain exports and eventually to the US boycott of the Moscow olympics. He also criticised many other countries human rights records including Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Uganda and then of course there was Iran. He even criticised american allies such as S Korea. In fact conservative republicans like Jeanne Kirkpatrick used these 'attacks undermining US allies' against Carter in the 1980 election. Even european leaders of traditional american allies such as Giscard and Helmut Schmidt of France and Germany were reputed to hate Carter although in this latter case the strained relationship was due to what the europeans saw as american interference in their european domestic economic policies.. resulting in what was deemed 'malicious' manipulation of the US dollar by France.

To support the falling dollar Carter brought in Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve in 1979. In October 1979 Volcker boosted the dollar by allowing interest rates in the US to rise some 300% in weeks, to well over 20%. This ultimately led to a global recession.

I remember Paul Volcker well. As a construction worker (a masonry crew) in a slowly dying industrial town (Akron, OH was the tire capital of the US), Volcker's hikes in the interest rates were crushing.

I went from working on a masonry crew to a minimum wage job as a security guard, thanks to my brother-in-law who knew the owner of the company. I got another break when a gas station attendent at an all-night station on the interstate was shot in the head - I took his job to add a second minimum wage job to my income.

Still, it was something that had to be done to bring the economy back under control. The real problem was the US sticking to the gold standard years longer than it should have. Besides, the core problems of towns like Akron, Buffalo, steel towns in PA, were a lot deeper than interest rates. Volcker's interest hikes were more like euthanasia for the rust belt rather than the reason they were in trouble in the first place. In fact, the effect's of Volcker's recession made me realize that I had to get out of Akron if I wanted any kind of decent future.

(Considering Volcker is Russian for 'wolf', Volcker's interest rates could have made an interesting addendum to the Three Little Pigs story.)

 

[BobG]

Although I realize that the price of gas hits many of America's working poor the hardest, it is imperative that we wean ourselves from oil; and soon. My fear is that we will wait too long and will eventually be forced to engage in energy wars, or worse, because we will have no choice. As the world demand increases and supplies dwindle, there are difficult times ahead.

We now have maturing options to fossil fuels, some of which are clean such as the ideal Hydrogen based technolgies, and other more practical short term options that are relatively clean such as ethanol, biodiesel, salt-water algae extracts, biomass conversion techniques, clean coal, and so on.

The majority of mainstream energy alternatives are viable when gasoline hits $5.00 a gallon; at least this has been a common claim found for ten years or more. We are close to that price now, so I see this as a huge opportunity to act in our own best long term interest - to rush in the new OPEC-free era of US politics.

Edit:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp
In principle this would all go back into the US economy.

I think we've already waited too long. I think we're at the point where it will take at least 20 to 30 years to adjust to permanently higher oil prices.

You would have thought the US would have learned something from the oil crisis in the 70's. Instead we let the price of gas drop to outrageously cheap levels (when adjusted for inflation).

That just encourages the type of sprawl that makes public transportation nearly impossible to implement in most medium size cities and the US auto industry is once again one or two steps behind their foreign competition. Neither one of those are problems that can be fixed very quickly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I used to work at the California Science Center across the street from the USC campus, which was about 20 miles from where I lived, and it took an hour and a half to get there every morning.

This is why I walked away from UCLA and fled to Oregon. I couldn't take it any more. I used to spend three to four hours a day in traffic. Now I probably spend three to four hours a year in traffic.

edit: of course I did still finish college.

 

[Mercatoreador]

I love how you place so much faith in the small cap companies involved in alternative energies. You can NOT charge a whole lot more for gasoline (look at europe, and no, there is no price-fixing contrary to popular belief, prices are set by local stations) and ethanol is hardly the future. It's pretty much a temporary fix towards hydrogen energy which cannot be created by someone inside their house. They pretty much know they'll run out of product soon enough and the first that can supply hydrogen to the market will make tremendous profits since $7 equivalency-gallon of hydrogen just can't lose to some $10 gasoline, especially when governments aren't as likely to put a 50% tax on it like they do with gasoline.

The problem is that hydrogen is not available from a natural source, it has to be produced, meaning it is dependent on energy sources. I never saw any proposal to produce Hydrogen in a closed circuit, meaning use hydrogen energy to produce more hydrogen. I'm sure someone will be working on this though.
Years ago I put my hopes on methanol fuel cells, where the methanol is producing the hydrogen. But the technology does not seem to develop fast enough. Tha's in my eyes the ideal solution while waiting for nuclear fusion energy. Methanol is available from fossile as well as renewable sources, and the exisiting fuel distribution system can be used without too much modification for methanol.

 

[Astronuc]

Sharp Reaction to G.O.P. Plan on Gas Rebate

WASHINGTON, April 30 (NY Tmes) — The Senate Republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help.

Aides for several Republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in November.

"The conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum.

The reaction comes as the rising price of gasoline has put the public in a volatile mood and as polls show that cynicism about Congress is at its highest level since 1994.

Priceless!

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Just to add to Anttechs point about the expense.

I live 20 miles from work and I commute by train. Yearly this costs 1500 pounds give or take a penny or two about $2473 per year including a subsidized bus pass. Trains are horrendously expensive and the government wonders why people travel by car?

 

[nsimmons]

On NPR today there was a call in from a gasoline station owner and he said he makes about 10 cents per gallon in profit.

If that is true, that means if he has 150,000 customers per year (~14 customers per hour) who buy 15 gallons of gasoline he'll be making a profit of $187,500 per year.

I can add something here. I had a business partner who owned at one time a shell and a smaller Canadian chain effiliated with esso. He made zero money on gasoline. He was essentially a middle man and survived soley on instore purchases. He had to constantly pimp lotto tickets and chocolate bars just to pay staff.

At least that's the way it works for Shell Canada and Imperial oil.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is great news! The local ABC affiliate just reported that commercially available, locally produced biodiesel is now cheaper than gasoline, here in the NW.

I just checked. They showed BD being sold at $2.96. This is competitive with both gasoline and regular diesel.
http://www.oregongasprices.com/inde...a=All Areas&station=All+Stations&tme_limit=48

Btw, that was B99 or B95. [doing back flips in office]

 

[Astronuc]

Northeast is not far behind. Governor Pataki is pushing for alternative fuels (including biodiesel) to be made available on our interstates (tollways/throughways).

Regular gasoline (87 octane) is around $3.09/gal in our area. Fortunately the prices seem to have stabilized. Last week the price was going up about $0.03-0.04/day, sometimes two price increases in a day.

locally produced biodiesel

Will there be fries with that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We should just streamline the process: Start selling biodiesel at McDonalds.