One of the favorite debates on Opinion Line is whether the Bush administration has somehow pushed gas prices lower to boost the president’s popularity.
This analysis by the Washington Post doesn’t rule out the influence of politics on petroleum markets, but also shows that the issue is a bit more complex than a desperate George W. Bush issuing a secret edict for $2 gas:
“Generally, oil experts, executives and traders cite other explanations for the recent steep fall in prices, including the easing of anxieties about possible armed conflict with Iran, the flight of financial speculators, ample oil inventories and softening U.S. demand.”
The Post piece probably won’t quash any of the myriad conspiracy theories, but it’s an instructive look at how the markets really work.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Health care reform would save state money
- XXX on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
132 Comments
I think that Bush Lackey Hugo Chavez lowered the price of gasoline to help Bush. Notice how all of those Venezuelen Citgo gas stations charged the same high prices as everyone else a few months back, and are charging some of the lowest prices now?What do the rest of you think?
Seriously now, Kudlow predicted lower gasoline prices way back in June:http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE4M2RlMDM1MmI0OGM1M2ViMGQ4MWUyYzc2YmEyZWU=
What do the rest of us think?
Well Paul the rest of us KNOW that you are a trader in oil and gas leases. That would tend to color YOUR view would it not?
You are a real case Paul. You pop in and out of threads. You never stick on a point that you make whether Ann Coulter or a chat room is the backing for your post.
YOU Paul, attack and run away.
So you are the perfect shill. All blow and no show.
I am thinking your time grows short here Paul. I’ve seen your like before……but not since.
Here’s a really scary idea for Repubs. Dems take over the congress and get the secret “classified” memos of Cheney and his oil-bidness bosses’ meetings.
Yeah Enron had an excuse for their prices too, remember?
Don’t forget the Hurrican making machine.
“subservive clown”? If you have any evidence to support your accusation of subversion you should turn him in.
At one time it was all of the computers in California as the root cause of high prices and shortages. Anything can be a corporate rationalization, and spoon fed to the masses.
The oil market is controlled by speculation whether something is going to happen or not happen. Unfortunately, the judgment of some of these people that ‘control’ the market is less than admirable.
The more we get into alternative fuels and utilize closer-to-home fuel sources, the better off we’ll be.
I think there is nothing that the media and the liberals won’t say or do to bash Bush. Whether the price of gas goes up down or stays the same you Blame Bush. Your theories are stupid.
Dave,
Think for a minute if you can that a Bush conspiracy to both raise and lower the price of gas is illogical.
Actually it is not illogical. Keep prices high to maximize profits but occasionall lower them to (a) effect elections and (b) discourage entry of competitors. Almost a textbook example of oligopoly pricing power.
I don’t think George W. Bush can raise or lower gas prices – but his rich oil company executives can.
These oil companies have been making record profits for the past year – these lower gas prices are just a drop in the bucket for them.
The oil companies know where there is a Republican – a politician can be bought.
This goes back many years – whenever it looks like we might take steps to reduce our addiction to oil the Saudis etc lower prices – at least temporarily.
Not to mention the recent OPEC announcement of a production cut of 100,000 bbls/day, the price impact of which should take hold about mid-November, according to my calculations.
I’ve often wondered what would happen in the Middle East if we suddenly didnt need their oil. I read someplace yesterday that the combined non-petroleum exports from the middle east are less than the exports from Finland. Don’t know if that includes Israel. All hell might break loose over there, but without oil money to finance the terror organizations they wouldnt have the means to strike us over here. A question for another day I guess.
Heckler, you and I read the same thing. This is why development of alternative energy sources should be a very large part of the “war on terror”.
I agree heckler. I suspect that their non-oil exports are a bit more than that (looking at non-oil Egypt, Lebanon, etc) but it sure would be nice to be able to tell them to try to eat their oil. But, as long as the House of Saud holds significant power over here that won’t happen.
Energy efficiency, nuclear, conservation, wind, solar, etc etc etc. Of course, we start that and watch the price come down – TEMPORARILY. That is why I favor an import fee on oil. The effect on our economy would be much less harmful than high prices since the revenues stay in the US. However, that would probably run afoul of WTO.
You know Paul’s telling a lie when he says, “I think”. Whatever follows is probably a lie too.
Citgo isn’t selling cheaper gas prices than the other stores in town:
http://www.wichitagasprices.com/
Debunked again Paul.
Ben Vaughn
Methinks this would bring about a serious humanitarian crisis if done over a relatively short time frame, say 5 years, would it not? Perhaps mass exodus? Maybe less so over say a 15 year time frame.
You thoughts?
Ben
I’m somewhat in favor of something like an import fee, but don’t we put ourselves at an sever economic disadvantage if the rest of the world is pay significantly less for energy than we are?
No, I don’t think we do. Since it would go into the treasury we should be able to use it to offset other revenue sources. In fact, our companies are currently disadvantaged due to health care costs which are socialized in other countries. Use the revenues for that perhaps. (A LOT of details would have to be worked out)
As for humanitarian issues my first ‘fine-tuning’ would be to exempt western hemisphere oil from the fee. That would help Maxico for example at the expense of Iran. (Gee, my heart really bleeds for Iran!) A side benefit of this would be lower energy costs for other importing countries as supply/demand dynamics change.
(This is scary heckler – we are largely in agreement!)
Ben
I say these things against my conservative free market nature. I’m just tired about worrying about the fine line we have to dance when it comes to appeasing foreign oil suppliers, protecting Israel, keeping crazy idiot dictators from blowing the place up etc. etc….
I’m tentatively willing to engage in anti-free trade policies to make us energy independant. God Help Me!
Heck, didn’t we have a little disagreement over wind power quite a while back?Doesn’t matter now.I agree, we may need to do evil to accomplish good.Evil being market regulation.
HAHAHA! Not laughing AT you but rather WITH you. Kind of like reactions by certain people when I talk about nuclear and trash-to-energy!
Now for a quandery: I want to see more use of nuclear energy. There are a number of reasons for this including CO2 and climate change. On the other hand, do I want Westar Corporation to have nuclear weapons? (Of course not) So, how do I foster the use of this dual-use technology without weapons proliferation? Talk about going against free trade! And even against national sovereignty in some cases.
A partial solution: Lease nuclear plants to a country complete with technicians under the auspises of the IAEA. Ownership and responsibility remains with the IAEA. (I’m thinking here about third-world countries in need of electricity) This could only be done by agreement. The plant would be located on a reservation similar in some ways to diplomatic mission – with armed guards if necessary. Definitely tricky.
Tracy
I’m not a big fan of wind power. I’d rather see wholesale expansion of nuclear energy. We shouldnt be burning any more petrol products for electricity than necessary. All petroleum products should be used where portability is required. Coal can be converted to diesel fuel, natural gas can be converted to diesel fuel. Use them motor vehicle transport.
When supply greatly exceeds demand, prices stay low.
When demand greatly exceeds supply, prices stay high.
When supply and demand are close to equilibrium, _that_ is when speculators are able to drive the market up and down.
Wildly fluctuating oil prices are simply evidence that Hubbert’s Peak is here _now_.
Bem; Heck;
I tend to agree, as well. Use the tax for the primary purpose of development of alternative energy and conservation technologies. I don NOT want it to be used to offset other revenue sources (you’d have Congress raiding this fund like they raid the SS fund). I’d disagree with exempting any imported oil, however, because it subverts the purpose of said tax. It exists to spur development here, not to reward/punish certain nations. I might be persuaded to exempt Mexico, however, if it might make any difference in development of the Mexican economy; it would help the immigration problem.
We should have done it two decades ago, but we didn’t have the political will to do so. I still not sure we have the political will.
Heckler, GMC – I would definitely add wind to the mix – BIG TIME. It can make a big dent in our supply problem. Also solar. To that I would add “reverse metering” as part of the implementation.
Look at the contributions of oil companies to Republicans versus Democrats, and I think it will be obvious who the oil companies favor.
The market price for crude and the price of gasoline can easily be decoupled. Gas price has fallen by nearly a third, while crude prices have fallen about 20 percent.
And don’t forget, 40 percent of our crude comes from the U.S., and costs no more to produce today than it did before the price run up.
And also, keep in mind that some overseas production is owned by U.S. companies, and costs no more to produce likewise.
Therefore, the oil companies can easily afford to manipulate prices, and probably do. Why do wholesale prices to gasoline stations march in lockstep, no matter what the supply source of the refiner?
Oil prices are obvioulsy manipulated.
Ha! so there!
My thoughts on the humanitarian “costs” of development of alternative energy sources are that the development of such sources will take some time, during which the necessary infrastructure would be built (assuming, e.g., hydrogen as the alternative to petroleum for motor vehicle fuel), providing employment; I like Ben’s idea of an import fee, with exemption of Western Hemisphere production (even though that directly benefits Venezuela), providing the cost increase to petroleum products refined from oil imported from the Mid East to make alternative energy source development competitive.
I believe the time frame to fully develop these resources to be ~20 years. Meaningful partial development would be in the ~10 year range, IMHO. Yes, there will be changes to the economy as we adjust to the new ways, and some will, regrettably, suffer therefrom. If we recognize this in advance and plan for it, the effects could be minimized.
One cost which is yet to be factored for “alternative” sources such as ethanol is the potential for water pollution from alcohol production, at least as the same is accomplished at present. This is why I am cool on ethanol, and think that hydrogen is the way to proceed.
For industrial use, there are large reserves of natural gas, and there is coal in the U.S. Much more research and development needs to be done on how to oxidize (burn) these carbon based sources with a minimum of increase in Carbon Dioxide. Whether human activity is a substantial contributor to the global warming now occurring may be open to debate; but, it is my understanding the geological record is such that periods of warming have often been accompanied by increases in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, making it sensible to me to avoid increasing its production.
Another so-called greenhouse gas is methane. I have no data to support this, but I suspect the proliferation of large feed lots has done much to increase, in “pockets”, the amount of methane escaping into the atmosphere, contributing to the warming issue as well. One of the areas of exploration in development of alternative fuel sources would be to harness the methane being produced from feedlot operation into usable fuel.
Bottom line: alternative sources of energy provide opportunities for employment and long term economic stability, with the additional benefit of being free from “foreign entanglements”, adding to the national security. Yes, there will be some short term economic disruption, but this can be dealt with by careful planning.
Question:
Is government (no matter which party is temporarily in charge) competent to do that kind of planning? The experience of centrally planned economies is not a good one.
These are the same folks who brought us the $800 hammer, after all.
GMC Ben
I agree with GMC that the tax should not used in any kind of punitive nature. It should be used to fund development of new technology. I just dont have a feel for how much money we’re talking about here. It would be a very dynamic situation depending on how quickly we could wean ourselves from foreign oil.
Dave,
Think for a minute if you can that a Bush conspiracy to both raise and lower the price of gas is illogical.
Dave,
Think for a minute if you can that a Bush conspiracy to both raise and lower the price of gas is illogical.
Dave,
Think for a minute if you can that a Bush conspiracy to both raise and lower the price of gas is illogical.
Doncha’ get the feeling that we are not meant to know how oil pricing is done?We can always get a lesson on supply side economics from the gov’t spokesperson, but the rest of it seems to be some esoteric shit to me.Guess I’m just stewpud.
mmmm……..DAVE’S NOT HERE, MAN!!
Vaugh GMC Tracy
I gave this link to Ben a few weeks back. If this Texas company accomplishes anything close to what they think they can with electricity storage it could completely change how we view our energy needs. I’m no fan of electric cars in their current state but this could conceivably drive a change to electric cars that people would be dying to buy. A good thing if you are a fan of nuclear energy.
http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/19/1715549.html
At first glance one might think that it’s a pipe dream but they have some serious investors so maybe there’s something to it.
This would change the whole game.
GMC
” I’m still not sure we have the political will.”
Hey if you and Heckler are willing to at least THINK about it, as you both have here, I call the outlook hopeful! Get your side of the fence back from the Paul Rosells of the country and we might just make a go of it.
Does bush control the price of gasoline DIRECTLY? Well in some ways yes. He (or any President) can sneeze in the general direction of the mideast and affect oil prices.But the effect of bush or Republicans on the price of gasoline is more indirect. The oil companies want them in power. I mean no one would argue that the GOP is the party of big oil. So the oil companies manipulate gas prices when they need to to get folks thinking less unfavorably about Republicans.
This really shouldn’t be about politics at all. It ought to be about national pride. How proud do we feel at being dependent on foreign oil?
This is the nation that put men on the Moon! I know it was a long time ago. I was a little kid when it happened. But it did happen. I grew up believing there was nothing this country couldn’t do. Don’t tell me we can’t get past our dependence on foreign oil if we really made a commitment to that.
Um… Dave’s with Cheech & Chong.
GMC, having done 4 years in the USAF and remembering, inter alia, the $450 toilet seats on aircraft, I share your wariness about government planning. Unfortunately, the government is where it will need to occur, because I don’t see private industry having the capability or desire to carry out this function.
[Rant] Education has to be an integral piece of this; part of the planning needed is an increase in the number of students studying the physical sciences, math, and engineering. Government needs to become involved in this in a big way, including, but not limited to, the increase in funding to education to allow payment of higher salaries, etc., to those teaching these subjects, if they are competent in their teaching. A true national focus on this issue is needed, comparable to putting a man on the moon in the ’60s. This education will, by necessity, include retraining of workers who find their jobs being outsourced in the traditional industries. Hopefully, this emphasis in education in these areas will translate into competent government officials (don’t hold your breth), who are hired and continued employment on the basis of competence, not fealty to a party.[/Rant]
For a somewhat general discussion see Michael R Baye, Managerial Economics and Business Strategy, Chapter 9 “Basic Oligopoly Models” Interesting headliner they used “Crude Oil Prices Fall, but Consumers in Some Areas See No Relief at the Pump”
“Oligopoly is perhaps the most interesting of all market structures …” It would seem that oil is a Bertrand oligopoly; however with OPEC in might be Stackelberg.
Chapter 10 “Game Theory: Inside Oligopoly” is also quite interesting.
gster–I’m glad somebody got it.
Whatever you do, don’t answer the phone…..
Dave!! Is that you man?You got the weed?
GMC
Well the economy or dynamics don’t have to be “centrally planned” with a stick. But the government can do a lot to move the market with the generous use of carrots.
Think tax credits or exemptions for alternative fuel vehicles. Think personal and community tax abatements etc. to encourage more use of public transit.
Ben you trouble me with the nuke stuff. It COULD be the basis for an electric boom. But most of us are still troubled and rightly so by the waste that remains deadly for thousands of years. I’m not being forgetful. I know you think that can be addressed.BUt it will rightly be a tough sell.
Hey editors? We can gripe and debate til the cows come home about gas prices. One of you should get us a thoughtful thread about alternative energy.
See Ben, thereya’ go wit’ dem $20 words again.I’m just an ignorant redneck when it comes to econmic policies and terms. Oh, and authors too.Whatever you’re saying, I agree, maybe. HA
Funny thing is, looking over the thread, how much agreement. heckler, I’m still skeptical of the technology but would love to see it proved. Actually, current battery technology can do a lot – they had a car in CA at the turn of the century (21st) that could get speeding tickets anywhere you would go and had a range about 300 miles. Given the fact that my daily driving is under 100 miles that would cover a lot. Of course, as I remind my Sierra Club friends, you have to generate that electricity …
Short term fluctuations in the price of gasoline can be explained, on one hand, by “natural market forces”, or, as Ben has posted previosly, by the actions of an oligopoly. When one considers the additional fact that a cartel controls the source of supply of a large majority of the raw material (oil), this in my mind diminishes the effect of normal market forces in the setting of the ultimate price.
It is a bit of a sad commentary that we currently consider the pump price of $2.179/gallon to be a good development.
Is there any chance that our nuclear waste could actually power a space vehicle after it leaves the atmosphere?
Or, Tracy, launched into the sun?
Tracy – only very small amounts – not enough to effect the issue. My idea is to try to close the loop as much as possible. Also, use decommissioned nuclear warheads backmixed with DU as fuel.
I read an article in Scientific American 4 or 5 months ago that talked about a new type of nuclear reactor design. The details escape me,but it stated that current reactor use about 5% ot the fuel , leaving 90-95% that is both unusable and deadly radioactive.
The new design used up about 90% and what is left is far less radioactive than the leftovers from current design. The article made the point that the new design could run on the waste currently being stored , thereby reducing the waste and also reducing the radioactivity of the waste. It also stated the author thought there was enought current waste to run literally forever using the new design.
I thought it was Flash Gordon, but maybe not. Thoughts?
Addendum to my earlier post:
Also, the authors made the point that the waste left in the new design was NOT weapons grade material.
gster, I recall reading/hearing something similar within the past few months. It does (given my limited knowledge in this area) seem to me that it should work. I would encourage those with greater knowledge to opine on this, too.
Vaughn- I think I kept the issue because it was so interesting I wanted to reread it.
Goldman Sacs unwound a long position in unleaded gas futures in August. New Treasury Secretary is former CEO for Goldman.This was a market moving unwind to the downside.On wall street the trend is your friend.The government has quit putting crude in the strategic oil reserves.It’s been rumored the Saudis have ramped up production. Citgo stations are independently owned and operated.
Is that the so-called “microsphere” design?
Ben- I can’t remember. I’ll try to find the article and give you the info- hopefully tomorrow.
gster,I believe they are classified as type 4 reactors and use no water for cooling. I believe they are gas cooled. They are supposedly so efficient, they can be used for hydrogen production during lull times.
Good point dusty. I would add that if the capacitor technology heckler referred to above they could be charged and used to cover peak use.
Wow. Good thread, folks. Only two bonafide idiots (I’ll let you figure out who!).
Want to become independent of imported oil?
http://www.oilendgame.com/ has a detailed study showing how we could easily do it — higher energy efficiency is the key, plus biofuels and hydrogen.
For example, tax-neutral feebates: Charge a fee on lower efficiency choices to pay for rebates on higher efficiency ones.
An import fee on M-E oil? How do you stop transshipments? Companies in western hemishpere buy (cheaper) oil from M-E, and then sell to us.
Nuclear energy?* Efficiency and renewables are much cheaper, and faster.* Distributed generation is better than central power plants.* Uranium supplies are finite.* Mining and transport generate greenhouse gases.* Safety issues — http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/unlearned-lessons-from.html
Dusty- That sounds familiar- hopefully I can find the magazine and give details tomorrow.
Well there’s a first time for everything.
Heckler? GOOD LINK.
I don’t normally shill a link. But that one should be read by everyone.
The hushhush nature of the deal may be out of fear that the petro companies will buy this promising technology and then shelve it. There is some evidence they have done such things in the past.
Cosmos, good point on transhipments; hadn’t thought that one through before.
Again, on biofuels, my concern revolves around the potential pollution and depletion of water sources. Perhaps a “grey water” capture system to use for these purposes?
cosmos
Barring a ground breaking discovery hydrogen is not the answer. It takes too much energy to extract it from water.(unless you use nukes.)If you extract it from oil you have gained nothing.
Heckler is largely right with one possible exception: excess wind power to electricity to hydrogan. Can also be used to charge batteries/capacitors.
Heckler, I seem to recall a discussion on NPR Science Friday a while back that, while agreeing with you concerning current methodology for extraction of Hydorgen from water being too energy intensive, that there had been some sort of research which identified an alternative methodology whereby solar and wind generated electricity could be enough to do the job. I’ll try to come up with something later, but I gotta get back to work now (or fairly soon, once I finish my sandwich).
JR
The hush-hush nature I think is that if it works, someones going to make a big fortune. If they accomplish anything near their goal they have a breakthrough that completely changes the energy game.Big oil couldnt buy them out if they wanted to.
It may turn out to be nothing. But if it works I can see a lot of people driving electrics,(because they are BETTER than I.C.) recharging at night at reduced electric rates.
I wonder – how many of us have science/engineering backgrounds? We seem to ahve moved quickly from agreement in principle to discussion of implementation details.
I’m not so much AGAINST wind energy as much as I’m more in favor of other sources.
There’s plenty of night time excess electric capacity. Whether it be from wind, nukes, or coal fired. The coal and gas burners tend to dial back at night because the nukes really can’t (as I understand it. No expert am I).
The other problem with hydrogen is storing it in a motor(or fuel cell) vehicle. Even compressed and refrigerated it takes about twice the space(and fairly complex equipment) to store the same amount of energy as gasoline or diesel.
Alright, who’s trolling JR?Can’t be him shilling heck’s links,can it?Naaawww.
Ben, I can help a little with the engineering, but I ain’t no brain scientist, or rocket surgeon.
I do agree that wind power is not THE answer, but an important part of an overall strategy that MUST MUST be adopted.For God’s sake, think of what it’ll be like for your grandkids.
Tracy
How many kilowatts is equivalent to 10 gallons of gasoline? I used to know this, 20 years ago.
Tracy
Never mind, I figured it out.
I remember Pres Jimmy Carter told us back in 1976 that we needed to find an alternative fuel source. What did the American public say back to him? They hissed and booed him out of office.
Then Reagan and BushI came in and did their usual Republican shenanigans and we are back on the oil more than ever.
JR:
“The hushhush nature of the deal may be out of fear that the petro companies will buy this promising technology and then shelve it. There is some evidence they have done such things in the past.”
I suspect this statement falls more in the realm of urban legend, i.e. the alleged 100 mph carbureator (I hope I spelled that right!!), than reality.
Unless there is real evidence to back it up. ???
Is EEStor the next Microsoft? That’s a good reason to keep it hush-hush; to maximize profits. And that’s what all successful business is about, maximizing profits. And no, that’s not a bad thing, it’s what makes the system work.
Nope Tracy it’s me.
If Heckler’ link is right it makes all this other stuff pretty irrelevant.
Full disclosure: My education level as to this stuff is slightly above interested layman.
If you had such an efficient battery technology and could minitaurize it, you could power just about everything in your house with built in batteries. If it is practical in automotive and transit applications, the internal combustion car would become a novelty.
I hope those folks have really good security. They would upset an awful lot of entrenched industry.
Hey libs:Enron was a LIBERAL corporation. Natural Gas interests are not the same as fuel oil, coal and gasoline interests.Enron was a natural gas (and very GREEN) corporation.Ken Lay went golfing with Clinton, type Clinton Lay into your browser folks!Enron, and Enron execs, gave large contributions to enviro groups as well as to Planned Parenthood and other left leaning organizations.
Dougie do right:You fall into every trap I set for you, you dope.I knew that detail Dougie would jump on my Citgo comment, that is why I made it.Now, Doug, expain this: If Hugo Chavez hates Bush, why isn’t Chavez trying to embarrass Bush by selling his gasoline cheaper when prices are high?If Bush is controlling the price of gasoline, why is Citgo charging more than everyone else? Why is a commie controlled company like Citgo “raping the consumers with windfall profits???” As the capitalist companies lower their prices?You liberals have trouble with logic.Your conspiracy theories fall apart when you study the Bush bashing Chavez.Citgo is actually very close to everyone else in price, always has been, always will be.The market is king, not Chavez, not Bush.
Sorry heck, I would have figured it out the same way you did I imagine.Most engineering is knowing where to go for your info. and how to use the tools when you get there.Somebody mentioned waste as energy earlier, we build forced air burners that can burn ‘digester’ gas, as well as conventional fuels.Digester gas is usually methane from animal poop.
JR
I don’t think it makes it irrelevent, you still have to generate a lot of electricity, but we could free ourselves of dependency on foreign oil by going heavily nuke/solar/wind/coal/hydroelectric.
You replace the portability of gasoline/diesel with the new portability of electricity.
Well paulf trollsell,you’re a little late in the discussion.We’ve moved on to discussing alternatives to your precious fossil fuels.I personally could care less about any conspiracies.None of us are in any position to expose conspiracy, why bother?Let’s move to a better fuel(s), and you can conspire and counter-conspire all ya’ want.
Go away Paul this is a no shill zone.
JR and TracyI was staying on point, for those who just “tuned in” to this thread.The thread started on the “dark conspiracy” theme.There is no conspiracy, and I appreciate your concession(s) on that debate point.Allow me another fossil fuel powered victory lap? lol
JR
The other thing is electric motors are far more efficient than internal combustion engines. I.C.’s blow about 40% to heat and friction.
I’m not against so-called fossil fuels. We have enough locked up in coal and oil shale to be energy independent as quickly as we could build the conversions plant. The problem is as soon as we do that the price of oil will collapse making that production financially unfeasible. Thus, the fee on imported oil to subsidize the added cost of domestic production.
We dick with my sacred free market principles in the interest of energy independence and the added security that comes with it.
In the mean time we continue to work on other sources of energy for the day when our coal/oil run out.
Hey Heckler –Are you a little slow to the electric vehicle ideal?I have been riding an electric power bicycle for about two years and enjoying the freedom of it.I am now working on converting a car to all electric power using electrolysis to generated hydrogen to power a generator for a set of battery banks.The answer to your question about kilowatts to gasoline is -A typical gallon of gasoline has an energy value of about 114,000 BTU per gallon.The result is: 114,000 Btu = 33.410 kilowatt hours.This means that one gallon of gasoline has an energy equivalent of 33.4 kilowatt hours of electricity.
I see Paul, you lie because you are setting a trap. Yeah, and everyone is a moron for pointing out the fact that you are a liar.
Pretty desperate Paul, I’m surprised you haven’t blamed your compulsive lying on Clinton.
BTW, Chavez is providing free heating oil to Alaskan villagers.
(in a blase’ tone of voice)(from stage left)Yeah, yeah, paulf, you win.No conspiracy.You’re on point.You da’ man.(yawning and stretching)(center stage)
(with renewed excitement in voice:)Now!! Where were we?Wind power?Battery technology?
Paul – no concession here – I posted enough above. We, however, have moved on beyond that. On both the “right” and the “left”
Paul you grow more ranty by the day. It cannot be long til you take that big whistling nosedive into a place where you finally realize (as most of us have already come to know) that you just embarrass yourself here.
Heckler,
Electrical engines are also quieter by far. And don’t sweat about the free market. The free market was NEVER MEANT to hold back advancements and preserve the status quo just because it was financially protective of some to do so. Now government would HAVE to be involved passively at least in the form of encouragements for the new technology to compete in the entrenched market at the start. But the market will go nicely on after that on its own.
Wiseman
The problem with todays electric cars is the batteries. They are heavy, expensive, and they have a short life. Give me an electric vehicle that will go 400-500 miles on a charge, has the equivalent of 250 horsepower that I can recharge in 5 minutes at a fraction of the cost of gasoline or diesel and I’m in.
Heckler – batteries have come a long way. Look at your cell phone for example. I think that is why the tesla will be so interesting to watch.
The cars in CA I mention above had about 300 mile range and would outrun most of the rest on the roads.
Heck:
Can we have that electric car play, digitally recorded if necessary, the lovely roar of a finely worked big block? I’m gonna miss ‘em, when that time comes, I’m afraid!
I know; longing for simpler days. Oh well . . .
Anywa, I’ll let the engineers/chemists/physists work out the how. That’s technical details that are outside any area of expertise I even pretend to have. The big key will be getting the tax dollars to pay for it without either 1) Congress dipping into the earmarked funds to pay for other budget priorities, or 2) preventing massive dollars from going into various “home district” boondoggles in the name of alternative energy development.
I’m afraid I don’t think Washington is competent to find its ass with both hands, no matter which party is in power.
I wonder if that movie is still playing at Palace East? If so go see it. Interesting thing about these EV’s is that they were NOT glorified golf carts – they were CARS! It’s too bad General Motors only leased them and then got them all back and destroyed them.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
1996 began to apear … 2006 gone …
Ben
The batteries(or capacitors) are the key to people buying them in mass. Buying them because they want them, not because they have too. Give electricity the portability of gasoline at a reasonable cost and life expectancy.
Electric motors kick ass compared to internal combustion. Constant smooth torque throughout the operating range and perhaps no transmision to go bad.(do they need a transmission? i guess it depends on rpms the motor will turn.)
Absolutely. There is one other major issue – “critical mass”. By that I mean having enough of them around that I can get it serviced.
Watching GM founder so badly these days I have to wonder: Where would they be today if they had a good product line to offer in electrics? If they had pursued the SUCCESSES depicted in the movie?
GMC
Not only could you pipe in the Big Block sound but you could build in oscilators to the steering wheel and seat to give you the vibration characteristics of your favorite motor. You could even program the motors to simulate the power curve.
With the push of a button you could go from the thumping sound, feel, and power curve of a well tuned 454 SS to howl of a Turbo Carrera, to the stump pulling torque of a turbo CAT powered Mack. You could even adjust the suspension to give you the same ride.
Gotta program in stalling and running out of gas …
;^)
A bus …
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/10/can-the-superbus-revolutionize-public-transport/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autoblog.com%2F2006%2F10%2F09%2Fcan-the-superbus-revolutionize-public-transport%2F&frame=true
Can the Superbus revolutionize public transport?
A bit extreme I think but it does raise an idea. What if a bus could have changeable batteries/capacitors? Then switch them out downtown at the depot each run.
Back to cars – the Tesla is being developed by a bunch of silicon valley types. With the progress in battery technology we have seen this could be fun. It’s supposed to go 100 mph.
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
Yes – batteries are a problem, but the way I see it, if you pursue to having the alternative technology now then eventually the industrial world will follow, improve and try to capitalize on it.Technological progress is not created by one person or one nation.Don’t wait for the perfect machine to come your way, if you do you will be left behind.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060930/news_1b30gas.html
Trader sold off billions in futures
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
September 30, 2006
LONDON – Politics and worries about oil supplies may have caused gasoline prices to go up at the pump earlier this year, but one big investment bank quietly helped their rapid drop in recent weeks, according to some economists, traders and analysts.
Goldman Sachs, which runs the largest commodity index, the GSCI, said in early August that it was reducing the index’s weighting in gasoline futures significantly. The announcement did not make big headlines, but it has reverberated through the markets in the weeks since and some other investors who had been betting that gasoline would rise followed suit on their weightings.
Wholesale prices for New York Harbor unleaded gasoline, the major gasoline contract traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, dropped 18 cents a gallon on Aug. 10, to $1.9889 a gallon, a decline of more than 8 percent, and they have dropped further since then. In New York yesterday, gasoline futures for October delivery rose 4.81 cents, or 3.2 percent, to $1.5492 a gallon. Prices have fallen 9.4 percent this year.Goldman Sachs declined to comment.
Unleaded gasoline made up 8.72 percent of Goldman’s commodity index as of June 30, but it is just 2.3 percent now, representing a sell-off of more than $6 billion in futures contract weighting.
Like many market indexes, trading in the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index is publicly available, allowing individual investors and third-party asset managers to participate in that market. The $100 billion invested comes from brokers, fund managers and individuals, probably including some of the same people who were hurt by high gasoline prices earlier in the year.
Goldman’s announcement Aug. 9 was not the only downward pressure on prices that week, market participants said. And while it may have played a part in sending prices down, the market would never have continued its downward trend unless supplies had loosened up, they say.
Also during the week, climatologists revised their hurricane forecasts, easing fears that oil supplies could be disrupted. And BP said it would still produce some oil from its field in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, where leaks were being repaired. Meanwhile, the peak gasoline season was ending, and new supplies of ethanol were coming online.
I doubt if politicians can control the price of gas by themselves, but consider this: Suppose you are a big oil company who had made large contributions to the majority party in congress and in turn had received favorable legislation that allowed you to make record profits. You would probably want to keep those people in office, right? One way to do that might be to temporarily lower the price of gas, (you can afford it) which would send the happy voters to the polls thinking “hey, things aren’t too bad the way they are,” and vote for the incumbants. Impossible?
Paul F. Rosell,
.morg posted (11:12 AM) that Citgo service stations are independently owned and operated.
Citgo sells their gasoline to stations thru independent marketers — Chavez has no control on the price.
How (and why) would those “independents” sell below a profitable market price?
bluedirt can politicans corner a market and manipulate it? They can if the market is not very transparent. Hedge funds control trillions of dollars very little oversight.
A interesting analysis of the unusual sell-off of $6+ billion in gasoline futures contracts by Goldman Sachs (.morg posted above).
Note the new Treasury Secretary, PPT, need to lower inventory, etc
‘Gasoline Price Manipulation Before the Elections’http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/stojan1.html
The latest issue of scientific american is dedicated to the alternate fuel/energy issues. Massive amounts of good info along with timelines for their use.
ps: ann coulter is “NOT” quoted in the latest issue of scientific american. (sorry paul)
Heckler,
I would not think you would need a transmission with an electric motor unless for some reason you wanted to build it with the power source in one end of the vehicle and the drive wheels in the other. Other than that, only 4 wheel drive vehicles would need a transmission.
OR just while I was typing that, another consideration.Think of a 4 wheel drive vehicle with 4 independent electric motors one for each wheel! With the sophisticated computer control we have today, such a vehicle would be far superior to current 4 wheel drive vehicles.I think we are about to embark into a technological revolution. Maybe this time the oil companies won’t be able to stop it.
JR – I have heard of that. Then add recharging on decelleration.
The Scientific American magazine that I referred to in my 11:00 AM post is from the Dec 2005 issue. “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste” describes fast-neutron reactors. It is very informative.
G
Also, if anyone wants a copy of the artcle, I can scan it and send it as an attachment. My email address is real.
JR,I hate to dissappoint you but the electric motor vs the current gas motors is no contest: the gas would win hands down in 4 wheel drive conditions. It’s hp and torgue, and electric motor size and weight would be a major hinderence in a vehicle such equipped. Hence we have hybrids.
In order for an electric motor to compete, it would have to be around 200 hp and have a energy system that would make it practical. With todays technology, such a 200 hp, battery driven car would get about 1/2 a block. A transmission could extend the drive to maybe 1/2 a mile. That 200 hp encompasses any combination of electric motors.
There is really not enough of an advance in electric motor technology, nor energy storage, to make it practical.
Which is why high pressure hydrogen, (3000 psi or greater)in large and strong enough containment system to make drives of 200 miles or greater practical, is the problem we should be working on.
Gas should not even be in the energy equation, but it is, and probably will be for another 30 years.
Whether Bush is controlling the price of oil is not worth the time to worry about. I think this administration has shown itself to be incapable of running a country, as has most of congress.
So what do we do? VOTE THE MORONS OUT!!! That includes Tihart and the rest of the business owned servants of the rich, including many democrats. God knows most of the republicans have procrastinated themselves out of office, if this country has any brains.
J M
I don’t know if you read Hecklers link. It is promising as to storage problems for electricity.
I may have been a bit misleading in the 4 wheel drive thing. I’m don’t know alot about off roading. My optimism was more in where a vehicle could go as opposed to how fast it could maneuver there. I was actually thinking more in terms of remote terrain exploration on Earth and really remote exploration on other worlds.I caught a little of a plan a while back for windmills way offshore in deep water. There they would not spoil any views or harm shore birds.
J M – also go to my links on electric cares that have gone into production. I don’t know their HP and torque specs but they sure get speeding tickets.
I don’t want the ’sound effects’ mentioned above – I want a radar jammer!
What do consumers want? If powerful engine worthy of off-roading, yet the owner doesn’t want the fender to get muddy, all these discussions are useless, in my opinion. If the avg Joe/Janet can be convinced that he/she is being ripped off by the carmakers for buying excess weight for that humongous gas guzzling engine, then there’s hope, at least for my children, even the ones yet to be born…
Allow me a review of my opinion that I hate America and the World’s reliance on Middle East oil as much as anyone.However, the fact is the the US is primarly now a consumer society. And with politics as they are in this country, nothing is going to get done on alternative fuel solutions until we run out of oil unfortunately.The last two or three generations we have been told the world’s oil reserves will last 40-50 years. The oil companies continue to find more and continue to get better at pulling it out of the ground.I’m considering trading in my Toyota Camry for a Hummer H2 to assist the world in using up oil reserves quicker so alternative solutions will be considered faster. /sarcasm Rage & friends:-)Thoughts?
Ethanol isnt the best answer for vehicles. Not only the problems of using up our water and growing irrigated corn where it shouldnt grow.
Efficiency problems too.
http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx?contentid=4024242
Interesting link to ther tesla cars. I would like to know the weight, then hp could be easily figured. I wonder if the 250 mile range claimed is under ideal conditions, but even so, the range exceeds what I would call a minimum range.
Lithium batteries have great potential, but Lithium itself is a deadly poison, so major incentives would have to be in place to discourage dumping. But, hell, if I had a hundred grand laying around, I would be tempted.
What I find interesting about Tesla is that the silicon valley guys will spend the money to have their sexy sports cars. That will subsidize development that hopefully will lead to a $25K or less car down the road.
Lithium is not really all that toxic; in small doses it is therapeutic.
Yea, I posted hoping to get the “big block” sound. And then saw this:
Gotta program in stalling and running out of gas …
;^)
Posted by: Ben Huie | October 10, 2006 at 02:57 PM
Ben: It may not have seemed like a big deal at the time, but it made me laugh on what is turning into a semi-crappy day. Thanks.
;^)
Take this out of the realm of gasoline costs, alternative fuels, etc, and ask yourself”: Is driving SAFE? On the list of “big killers” in the U.S. automobiles rank 10th or 11th.
100 years ago, anyone proposing to commute 25, 50, 100 miles to work every day would have been considered insane. Today, it’s considered “normal.”
It doesn’t matter whether your car runs on gasoline, vegetable oil, electricity or “zero-point energy”: if you drive more than 10 miles one way to work, you’re a fool. Sell your house and MOVE.
Alden – not realistic for most people. What happens when two people work in different locations? What is the sell/move cost when you change jobs across town? As great as it would be to be able to live in biking distance of work it often is simply not realistic.
ksfarmgrrl,
Thanks for the link on Flex Fuel Vehicles and ethanol — 3 very important points in it:
“* The majority of FFVs are large vehicles like the Tahoe that get relatively poor fuel economy even on gasoline.
* The FFV surge is being motivated by generous fuel-economy credits that auto-makers get for every FFV they build, even if it never runs on E85. This allows them to pump out more gas-guzzling large SUVs and pickups, which is resulting in the consumption of many times more gallons of gasoline than E85 now replaces….In addition, FFV engines are designed to run more efficiently on gasoline. E85 fuel economy could approach that of gasoline if manufacturers optimized engines for that fuel.”——
In short, because Congress put a big loophole in CAFE, we have to import MORE oil, gas demand and prices are HIGHER, and we’re WASTING our valuable ethanol.
And… Detroit gets to push a bogus “green” image.
I agree on the water problem for irrigating corn — especially if climate change causes drought + higher temps in farming areas.
The obvious (but ignored) solution is higher mpg. That’d cut oil imports, and drop gas prices. It’d make ethanol, hydrogen, nat gas, batteries, etc more feasible, and cheaper.
All I can say is that the people who credit Bushllit with lower gas prices now know who’s to blame for the catastrophic rise in gas prices over the last six years!
OK, let’s try this:
If we just redistribute taxes so that less $ are collected from property and income taxes, and more $ are collected from general “transportation” taxes (gasoline tolls, etc.), then people will naturally make the decision to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, drive less miles, look for closer jobs, ride mass transit, etc.
Thus, an increase in gasoline taxes can — depending on _YOUR_ chosen lifestyle — result in a _decrease_ in your overall taxes.
alden – some of us have been advocating that for decades
The collapse of gasoline, crude oild and natural gas prices was the result of the collapse of hedge funds that had massive long positions on the energy markets. Google “Amaranth”(sp?) among others.
V.L.R.B!!
Ian-Yor’re certanly doing your part in giving me cheap gas!Thanks a lot!