Something's gotta give - Gasoline Prices

[Art]

Ah, that's "essence" (what's the correct English word ? Gas ?). I was talking about gasoil for diesel engines. Yes, gas is more expensive, about 1.3-1.5 Euro, corresponding to Art's number.

In the UK it's called petrol (petroleum) which is the same as the US gas (gasolene)

 

[russ_watters]

So wait - is diesel fuel cheaper than gas in Europe?

 

[Astronuc]

This morning in Georgia and North Carolina (and apparently across the southern US from LA to the Carolinas) gasoline prices are hitting up to $6.00 / gal.

Locally, near NYC, I have seen prices increase 10% this morning alone - to just over $3.00 /gal

The area hit by Katrina has 30% of domestic oil production (20 rigs/platforms are gone) and 50% of the refining capacity (I don't know if that applies to the gasoline supply). So nationally, gasoline production is down about 10%.

Economists are expecting a general drift in gasoline prices to about $4.00/gal.

The release of strategic oil reserves will have a limited (and possibly insignificant) impact.

It is time to think of high mileage cars (Honda Civic sedan gets 35-40 mi/gal), and get rid of SUVs (10-15 mi/gal). Use synthetic oil and replace every 5000 miles and that keeps the mileage up.

Also, fuel prices in Europe may increase if the US is forced to buy gasoline and diesel from European refineries - a real possibility.

 

[vanesch]

So wait - is diesel fuel cheaper than gas in Europe?

Sure ! It's taxed less.

 

[faust9]

Read up about the "oil peak":
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

Argh! People need to stop with the peek oil!. What happens when fuel cost go up? We transition to clean diesel. What happens when that goes up? We transition to a newer or more refined product. The cost of energy has been going down for a 100+ years. There is and occasional spike upward but when that occurs, we transisiton to a different fuel. The doom and gloom chicken little peak oil scare is the exact same doom and gloom peak coal scenerio painted at the turn of the century. Guess what, coal became more expensive than petrolium thus we started using gas/oil/diesel/LP and what not.

As a more recent example look at the oil crisis of the late 70's. What happened to the auto industry? Well big fat V8's went the way of the dodo only to be replaced by small 4 bangers which got better milage. Enter the mid 80's and the return of cheap gas. We saw a resurgance of V8's and larger vehicles. What do we see happening now? Well SUV sales are slumping and Prius sales are exploding. When clean diesel hits the mass US market I guarantee VW's and the like will sell like hotcakes---my wife's Beetle gets around 50MPG and you'd never know it was a diesel.

Things we'll see in the short term: direct injection gasoline engines. I'm playing with one right now. These things run with a 30 to 50:1 afr while cruising and at the same time lower emissions. You're looking at a 2 to 3x increase in fuel effeciency from a GDI engines over a classic manifold design.

I can go on, but there really isn't any use in it I know. Those who have bought into peak oil usually do so without looking at historical precident or current technological advances. All they see is the cost of energy "going up"; however, when weighed against inflation the cost of energy is not going up as quickly as one would expect as we approach the limits of a commodity.

It's simple supply and demand. We have technology available to lessen our dependence on oil now but what needs to happen is we need to hit a break even point where the added cost of new technology is countered by the increased costs of current technology.

 

[revelator]

Around Toronto, gas prices seem to fluctuate around $1.0? CAD, although it's recently jumped to $1.1? CAD due to Katrina. So I guess we pay something like $3.8? CAD / gallon.

Thank God I don't drive. Buses and bikes and feet for me! Comebine the money I don't waste on gasoline with the money I don't waste on car insurance, and I'm laughing all the way to the bank (on foot).

 

[Art]

So wait - is diesel fuel cheaper than gas in Europe?

It used to be about 10% cheaper but in the past few years diesel has become more expensive than petrol in the UK and Ireland by a few cents per litre.

 

[vanesch]

Argh! People need to stop with the peek oil!. What happens when fuel cost go up? We transition to clean diesel. What happens when that goes up? We transition to a newer or more refined product. The cost of energy has been going down for a 100+ years.

Yes, because never in recent history we RAN OUT OF ONE before a new one was in sight. As you say yourself:

Guess what, coal became more expensive than petrolium thus we started using gas/oil/diesel/LP and what not.

So it was in fact the other way around: a new thing became available that pushed the old one off the market. We didn't RUN OUT OF COAL. It was just not economically reasonable anymore to still prefer coal when oil was available. So I ask you: what's pushing oil now out of the market ?

As a more recent example look at the oil crisis of the late 70's. What happened to the auto industry? Well big fat V8's went the way of the dodo only to be replaced by small 4 bangers which got better milage. Enter the mid 80's and the return of cheap gas. We saw a resurgance of V8's and larger vehicles.

Sure, you can push down somewhat the demand by being more economical. And thus push a bit farther out the oil peak. So instead of in 2015, it will be in 2020. However, there are ONLY SO MANY JOULES IN A LITRE OF CRUDE OIL available. You cannot push up indefinitely the efficiency of the things that use it. My car (a monovolumer) consumes something like 30 mi/gallon (if I did the conversion right). Now I can imagine that 10 years of research on that car could improve it to say, 60 mi/gallon but that will be it. I will never have a car that does 300 mi/gallon. That's physically impossible.

Things we'll see in the short term: direct injection gasoline engines. I'm playing with one right now. These things run with a 30 to 50:1 afr while cruising and at the same time lower emissions. You're looking at a 2 to 3x increase in fuel effeciency from a GDI engines over a classic manifold design.

Most of these engines are already in use in Europe and yes, rather small cars (my wife's Peugeot) has a diesel engine with direct injection and consumes about 60 mi/gallon. You cannot do much better.

It's simple supply and demand. We have technology available to lessen our dependence on oil now but what needs to happen is we need to hit a break even point where the added cost of new technology is countered by the increased costs of current technology.

What technology ? For instance, I recently heard a radio program where it was stated by some experts that with current technology, to produce ethanol from mais and use that as a fuel to replace oil would need 4 times the surface of France growing mais to cover the entire current consumption of gas by cars in France.
The only serious option out is the nuclear way, but it doesn't work for everything. What technology will replace kerosene in airplanes, and be commercially available in 10 years from now ?

 

[faust9]

Yes, because never in recent history we RAN OUT OF ONE before a new one was in sight. As you say yourself:



So it was in fact the other way around: a new thing became available that pushed the old one off the market. We didn't RUN OUT OF COAL. It was just not economically reasonable anymore to still prefer coal when oil was available. So I ask you: what's pushing oil now out of the market ?



Sure, you can push down somewhat the demand by being more economical. And thus push a bit farther out the oil peak. So instead of in 2015, it will be in 2020. However, there are ONLY SO MANY JOULES IN A LITRE OF CRUDE OIL available. You cannot push up indefinitely the efficiency of the things that use it. My car (a monovolumer) consumes something like 30 mi/gallon (if I did the conversion right). Now I can imagine that 10 years of research on that car could improve it to say, 60 mi/gallon but that will be it. I will never have a car that does 300 mi/gallon. That's physically impossible.



Most of these engines are already in use in Europe and yes, rather small cars (my wife's Peugeot) has a diesel engine with direct injection and consumes about 60 mi/gallon. You cannot do much better.



What technology ? For instance, I recently heard a radio program where it was stated by some experts that with current technology, to produce ethanol from mais and use that as a fuel to replace oil would need 4 times the surface of France growing mais to cover the entire current consumption of gas by cars in France.
The only serious option out is the nuclear way, but it doesn't work for everything. What technology will replace kerosene in airplanes, and be commercially available in 10 years from now ?

I don't want to sound too much like an ass but diesel engines have always been direct injection. GDI is different is different because petrol is much more volitile and much harder to get the timing correct. I never mentioned methanol or ethanol because you cannot run these directly. 10% is as much as you can run without causing discomfort to people(alcohol buring engines emit an eye and nasel passage burning exhaust).

There are only so many Joules in a ton of coal. The very same arguments you are using now were used BEFORE oil became a viable energy source. How much coal is there on the plant now? Quite a bit. We've become more efficient at mining it, cleaning it, and burning it. The same thing will happen to gasoline. We'll probably see mor long-haul trucks with gas turbines before too long. We'll definately see more nuc-plants here in the states. I'd expect to see diesel hybrids in the not too distant future as well. As for the next super source of energy---I don't know. They didn't know in the 1870's what would replace coal. No one expected 1960's technology to change our lives in the early 90's either. The technology may be around already---it's not my field. I do engine controls right now and I'll say the engines being made now and around the block will be smaller(a liter or less) that can and will make 80 to 150Hp.

When the cost of gas exceeds some preset value we will transition. Fuel cells are under development. More efficient solar cells are under development. Nuc,s and windfields are becoming more and more enticing. We have other sources of energy available right now, it's a matter of economics as to when we will move from Otto cycle engines to something else.

 

[vanesch]

When the cost of gas exceeds some preset value we will transition. Fuel cells are under development. More efficient solar cells are under development. Nuc,s and windfields are becoming more and more enticing. We have other sources of energy available right now, it's a matter of economics as to when we will move from Otto cycle engines to something else.

I would still like to see how these things are going to come to the market and allow us entirely (or up to 80%) to replace our current oil consumption by, say, 2015, when extrapolating our current ways of life (and those of the Chinese and the Indians). I would like to see how our entire industry will switch to other stuff than oil in 10 years time, thanks to wind and solar !
The transition from coal to oil was totally different ; I'm not aware of any "coal peak" before oil came on.

EDIT: also, oil was first successfully drilled in 1859 in the US...

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, because never in recent history we RAN OUT OF ONE before a new one was in sight.

You misunderstood the "peak oil" issue. Peak oil is not about running out of oil, its about a production peak and a long, slow decline, which could last a century or more (edit: actually, such things never run out completely, they just approach zero hyperbolically). It isn't saying that oil production is going to drop to zero in a matter of years, just that it'll stop increasing and start decreasing. Its a common misperception, and I don't know why: the first paragraph of your link is quite explicit:

Peak Oil means not 'running out of oil', but 'running out of cheap oil'.

Where people disagree with the concept is simply in the timeframe and the impact of the change.

 

[vanesch]

You misunderstood the "peak oil" issue. Peak oil is not about running out of oil, its about a production peak and a long, slow decline,

I know, Russ, I know. You can consider the peak as roughly the last date when the ressource "can be counted on". After that, of course for some specific applications you can still use it, but the elasticity in the price is inversed, meaning: the higher the sustained demand, the MORE THE PRICE RISES, which is normally the opposite: the higher the sustained demand of something, the better the production processes and the higher the production capacities, so that in the long term, the price lowers. Before the peak, sustained high demands tend to increase the production, hence re-balancing demand and offer. After the peak, this goes the other way around, making the market more and more unstable (with constantly rising prices).
Of course, in 2050 there will still be oil. But at $7000,- a barrel. Which might be worth it for certain specific applications, in the chemistry industry or so.
But, how will you cope in 2015 when a gallon of gas will cost $50,- ?

Have a look at:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html

http://www.energybulletin.net/4483.html

 

[faust9]

I would still like to see how these things are going to come to the market and allow us entirely (or up to 80%) to replace our current oil consumption by, say, 2015, when extrapolating our current ways of life (and those of the Chinese and the Indians). I would like to see how our entire industry will switch to other stuff than oil in 10 years time, thanks to wind and solar !
The transition from coal to oil was totally different ; I'm not aware of any "coal peak" before oil came on.

EDIT: also, oil was first successfully drilled in 1859 in the US...

So what, one well does not a commodity make. Also, oil had been drilled as early as the 1820's for lamp oil in the US. The first oil refinery was made in 1856. These first accomplishments in no way shape or form allow oil to replace coal as the fuel of choice. We have the technology to puwer cars from U-238 as we speek. We have mines for U. We have labs to refine U-238. All that aside U is not a commodity and oil wasn't a commodity until the turn of the century. By that time the industrial revolution was in full swing and powered by coal. That is when the coal scare began---before oil was considered a commodity.

I'm not going to argue peak oil anymore because we are not going to run out of the stuff in 2015. We may approach some production level that allows an alternative fuel to become viable but we will never actually run out of oil. The world will not shut off December 31 2014 or some other arbitrary date simply because a few articles on the internet say so. Hell, we have not even reached the $90/barrel cost of oil(adjusted for inflation) we saw in 1973. We may get there soon, but we've been there before and over a decade the way we used oil changed. Clean coal electric plants replaced oil fired plants. We moved from SD 455's(actually the SD455 was available in 73 and 74 that's a different story though) to Pinto's and Cosworth Vegas. We added insulation to our homes to reduce energy costs. We did a lot on the industrial side and the consumer side to reduce our oil consumption by IIRC about 20%.

I working with engines that can get 50 to 60 MPG with no loss of 'apparant' power. The push the gas peddal and feel the car accelerate power. It all boils down to simple economics. New developing economies are LESS likely to become oil dependent because it consumes a GREATER portion of their incomes than in developed countries. Virgin markets are more likely to develope and adapt new fuels because they have less free cash to spend on costlier fuels, so the argument that India and China will consume the worlds oil is false. Those who can pay for a commodity and are willing to pay for a commodity are the ones who get the commodity. Developing countries are less able to pay for commodities than already developed nations.

 

[faust9]

I know, Russ, I know. You can consider the peak as roughly the last date when the ressource "can be counted on". After that, of course for some specific applications you can still use it, but the elasticity in the price is inversed, meaning: the higher the sustained demand, the MORE THE PRICE RISES, which is normally the opposite: the higher the sustained demand of something, the better the production processes and the higher the production capacities, so that in the long term, the price lowers. Before the peak, sustained high demands tend to increase the production, hence re-balancing demand and offer. After the peak, this goes the other way around, making the market more and more unstable (with constantly rising prices).
Of course, in 2050 there will still be oil. But at $7000,- a barrel. Which might be worth it for certain specific applications, in the chemistry industry or so.
But, how will you cope in 2015 when a gallon of gas will cost $50,- ?

Have a look at:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html

http://www.energybulletin.net/4483.html

Oh, c'mon! $7000 a barrel? Lame. Nuclear cars will be on the road before we see $7000 a barrel.

 

[BobG]

The cost of gas in the UK is currently about $1.60 per litre or roughly $8 per gallon (though I believe a UK gallon is slightly more than a US one)
European gov'ts have been following a policy for some years now of using taxation to deliberately push up the price of fuel to the motorist to persuade people to use more environmentally friendly mass transit systems / public transport in an effort to reduce pollution and congestion.

European fuel taxes are a good idea. They even work in an area of the world that has long lacked anywhere to expand to. The US would have a much harder time transitioning to taxes as high as Europe's (even though I think the market would have endured some artificial increases in price through the 80's and 90's).

Cheap fuel has gone hand in hand with the 'Go West' mentality (early pioneers dealt with overused farm lands by migrating rather than land management). The US has had seemingly endless room to expand and few economic reasons not to. Urban sprawl has reached a point where a sudden transition to mass transit would be impossible for most cities. It would take a couple decades or more for US culture to reverse the process and for cities to become dense and compact enough for mass transit to work.

Those high European fuel taxes also provide a buffer against short term spikes in price. The taxes can always be lowered to prevent economic hardships. The US doesn't have much buffer - short term crises are felt immediately. Yet another reason the US should have prevented fuel prices from reaching their cheapest prices ever relative to other goods.

To be honest, overly cheap fuel reduced the security of the US. It's an absolutely essential resource for the US, forcing the US to rely on some countries we'd probably rather not entrust our future to.

 

[vanesch]

Oh, c'mon! $7000 a barrel? Lame. Nuclear cars will be on the road before we see $7000 a barrel.

Ok, I took some liberty with my estimations

 

[MaxS]

Here's my thoughts:

In the US the DMV constantly tells you "Driving is a privelage not a right."

Well, on that basis I say we tack on a 3 dollar a gallon gas tax. That 3 dollars will be used SOLELY to fund our ailing public transportation system.

That will create an incentive for people not only to carpool if they insist on driving but also to use public transport, taking a lot of the load off our roadways.

Finally, I sometimes wonder what would happen if there were a massive gas boycott, sort of like the bus boycott led by MLK JR. in the South.

 

[Astronuc]

We have the technology to puwer cars from U-238 as we speek. We have mines for U. We have labs to refine U-238. All that aside U is not a commodity and oil wasn't a commodity until the turn of the century.

Say what!?

U is a commodity, albeit a very special commodity in a rather limited market.

U-238 is not fissile, U-235 is. U-238 can be converted to Pu-239, which is also fissile.

It is impractical to build a small reactor to power an automobile because the critical size is too great for low enrichment (current limit on commerical fuel is 5% U-235). Mobile reactors for military use are about the size of large car or small truck. Then there is the waste issue, I would not want the garage down the street being responsible for the disposal.

Back to reactor size - a compact reactor would require weapons grade enrichments. I imagine terrorists would be stealing cars to make nuclear weapons.

 

[Skyhunter]

Say what!?

U is a commodity, albeit a very special commodity in a rather limited market.

U-238 is not fissile, U-235 is. U-238 can be converted to Pu-239, which is also fissile.

It is impractical to build a small reactor to power an automobile because the critical size is too great for low enrichment (current limit on commerical fuel is 5% U-235). Mobile reactors for military use are about the size of large car or small truck. Then there is the waste issue, I would not want the garage down the street being responsible for the disposal.

Back to reactor size - a compact reactor would require weapons grade enrichments. I imagine terrorists would be stealing cars to make nuclear weapons.

Brilliant observation Astronuc.

 

[1+1=1]

I feel that "only the strong survive" applies in this gas mess. If you can afford gas, you will buy it, no matter how much it is per gallon. If you cannot afford, don't buy it. The people who have the SUV will ultimately buy the gas because of these two reasons (in my eyes): 1. They need the gas for the vehicle. 2. They can afford it. Don't push the blame on the SUV owner, they need gas just as much as everyone else.

So I dumped $47.00 in my tank and I only got to half. The feeling of driving something that big and feeling safe is worth every penny of gas. Riding in the comfort also makes up for it.

 

[edward]

The problems were caused by stupid people that were afraid they wouldn't get gas, so they stopped and filled up once a day. This caused others to panic and everyone would stop and fill up, causing long lines at the pump. :grumpy:

Oh so you were there then? I was there and it was the exception for someone to wait in a gas line for one to two hours just to top off their tank.

There were no announcements of any kind as to when and where gas would be available. People had to drive around, wasting gas, to try and find a station that had their pumps unbarricaded, then get in line wait and wait and wait.

Tanker truck deliveries to stations were usually done in the middle of the night, because when people saw daytime deliveries the stations were overwhelmed. A lot of stations would open only one pump, so that they could more easily manage traffic in and out of the property.

There were no self service stations then. Gas station attendants pumped the gas. To avoid confrontations, as soon as the stations underground tanks started to run low, most stations were quickly barricaded by employees.

Imagine waiting in a gas line for nearly an hour, only to have the station management pull barricades in front of the pumps just before it was your turn.

With the road rage mentality that Americans have recently developed, a situation anything close to the Arab oil embargo, will potentially be very violent.
I cannot imagine the current generation of spoiled, impatient, hotheads having a barricade pulled in front of them in a similar situation.

High prices are one thing, no gas available is quite another.
Several posters have mentioned that this is only temporary and hopefully that is true. On the other hand, temporary, is what we were told in 1973. And it was only temporary if you call two years temporary. It will possibly be months before the gulf oil and gas supply resumes to full capacity. Most of the price increases this week have been plain old price gouging.

 

[edward]

So I dumped $47.00 in my tank and I only got to half. The feeling of driving something that big and feeling safe is worth every penny of gas. Riding in the comfort also makes up for it.

I am sure the oil companies appreciate your support. What will you do when that amount becomes $147.00 for that half tank of gas.

Being safe and feeling safe are two different animals. Pickups and SUV's have the highest death rate in roll overs.

 

[Evo]

Oh so you were there then? I was there and it was the exception for someone to wait in a gas line for one to two hours just to top off their tank.

Yes, I was there and that's all people did, I'd be behind people getting 3-4 gallons of gas each. :grumpy: If people hadn't panicked and started acting crazy, the lines would not have formed. You didn't have self service? We did. I lived in Houston, TX at the time.

 

[edward]

Yes, I was there and that's all people did, I'd be behind people getting 3-4 gallons of gas each. :grumpy: If people hadn't panicked and started acting crazy, the lines would not have formed. You didn't have self service? We did. I lived in Houston, TX at the time.

There were a few self service stations, but most were the old fashioned full service stations. (Arizona has always been a bit backward) I was lucky that I could slip into the back of the station where I always had my oil changes done, and the owner would always let me have gas.

Talking to him is how I learned a lot about the situation. If your gas gage was not under half full, you didn't get any gas. All of the local, Phoenix, station owners used this policy starting several months into the problem. Perhaps they should have done it nationwide.

 

[Art]

Out of interest what is the average mileage per annum for drivers in the US. In the UK it's ~12,000 miles so I am interested to see if the higher fuel prices in the UK does actually have an impact on car usage?

 

[Grogs]

Out of interest what is the average mileage per annum for drivers in the US. In the UK it's ~12,000 miles so I am interested to see if the higher fuel prices in the UK does actually have an impact on car usage?

Close to the same. 12,242 miles/vehicle in 2003.

All the data you ever wanted to know about U.S. Driving statistics is here:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/html/table_automobile_profile.html

 

[Art]

Close to the same. 12,242 miles/vehicle in 2003.

All the data you ever wanted to know about U.S. Driving statistics is here:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/html/table_automobile_profile.html

Thanks Grogs, Seems higher fuel prices does nothing to reduce mileage and so the reasons given for the high taxes in europe are simply a righteous sounding excuse for screwing motorists.

 

[edward]

Thanks Grogs, Seems higher fuel prices does nothing to reduce mileage and so the reasons given for the high taxes in europe are simply a righteous sounding excuse for screwing motorists.

How many vehicles does the average U/K family own??

The statistics show that the many American families have at least two or more vehicles. I found a DOE site that stated that the average miles driven per family is 21,000. But that info is from 1994.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html

 

[Grogs]

How many vehicles does the average U/K family own??

The statistics show that the many American families have at least two or more vehicles. I found a DOE site that stated that the average miles driven per family is 21,000. But that info is from 1994.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html

Oops, you're right. That site doesn't give per driver stats explicitly. 12,242 is per vehicle. You can do the math and get the per driver though. 2.68 Trillion vehicle miles divided by 196 Million licensed drivers gives about 13,600 miles per driver. It may be a little high (I believe it includes long haul truckers), but it's still fairly close to the miles/vehicle stat.

 

[edward]

I just love this.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While Americans are shelling out record prices for fuel, Iraqis pay only about 5 cents a gallon for gasoline - a benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars subsidies bankrolled by American taxpayers.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0606-04.htm

 

[Art]

Oops, you're right. That site doesn't give per driver stats explicitly. 12,242 is per vehicle. You can do the math and get the per driver though. 2.68 Trillion vehicle miles divided by 196 Million licensed drivers gives about 13,600 miles per driver. It may be a little high (I believe it includes long haul truckers), but it's still fairly close to the miles/vehicle stat.

The 12,000 mpa I quoted originally were per vehicle and vehicle ownership in the UK would be the same as the US 2 - 3 per family so the figures are comparable.

 

[vanesch]

Oh, c'mon! $7000 a barrel? Lame. Nuclear cars will be on the road before we see $7000 a barrel.

Do you think it is reasonable, from now on, to have a 10% increase per year of the oil price ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thanks Grogs, Seems higher fuel prices does nothing to reduce mileage and so the reasons given for the high taxes in europe are simply a righteous sounding excuse for screwing motorists.

Here in CA they raised taxes on Gasoline a while back as part of their plan to get people to use less gasoline and car pool more often. It worked. The problem was that because people started driving less and car pooling more they weren't making as much money in taxes any more. So now they want to start taxing milage as well. They actually want to tax us for every mile we drive.

 

[Manchot]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - While Americans are shelling out record prices for fuel, Iraqis pay only about 5 cents a gallon for gasoline - a benefit of hundreds of millions of dollars subsidies bankrolled by American taxpayers.

It seems that what they're trying to do is make people happy by subsidizing the Iraqis' gas costs. Apparently, it has created a car bubble of sorts, where cars are becoming extremely plentiful. Unfortunately, it seems that we've dug ourselves into a pretty big hole here: when the subsidies stop, people will get angry.

 

[Evo]

I think there should be more telecommuting, There is no reason why I can't do my current job from my home. I work on a computer all day, it doesn't matter where I am. I was allowed to work at home for 13 years, then the new VP decided she wanted to see everyone sitting at a desk under her control and made everyone come into the office everyday. It's nonsense. I didn't need to commute 70 miles every day to sit at a computer. (I quit, btw)

They could give companies a tax break as an incentive to set people up as remote workers. There is just no sense to drive to an office if you do not have to physically work with people or equipment there. Millions of people could work in a home office.