poll: do you wish for higher fuel prices or lower

what would you wish for please voice your opinion

  • higher fuel prices becase it would move us faster to renewable "green" energy

    Votes: 37 66.1%
  • lower fuel prices because oil companys make to much as it is

    Votes: 9 16.1%
  • let the free market decide its the only fair way to go

    Votes: 10 17.9%

  • Total voters
    56

truckerzero

100 W
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
286
Location
fenton ,mo (st louis suberb) USA
lets see what a community of people that love ebikes have to say
 
Well...I wish it was that simple.

I'd like to see more progress being made in EVs, but I don't want to see it done by way of a stick (unaffordable gasoline) as opposed to a carrot (cheaper, more efficient). It puts the wrong idea into the heads of the masses. "Oh, I had to get an electric car because I couldn't afford gas." vs. "EVs FTW!"

Plus, I have to ride an unpowered bike to the bowling ally tomorrow morning because gas is too expensive and my ebike's still not fixed. Dammit. :?
 
Link said:
Well...I wish it was that simple.

I'd like to see more progress being made in EVs, but I don't want to see it done by way of a stick (unaffordable gasoline) as opposed to a carrot (cheaper, more efficient). It puts the wrong idea into the heads of the masses. "Oh, I had to get an electric car because I couldn't afford gas." vs. "EVs FTW!"

I'm a massive fan of the stick. If that's what it takes for our lazy-ass society to finally change, then so be it.

-Justin
 
At a party last night, in Dallas, I heard someone say that "whew gas is dropping again...I think I will get that Escalade afterall." A mere twenty five cent drop down from 4 dollars had this asshole thinking already about a big new car.

Until gasoline hits 25 bucks a gallon, American drivers will continue to drive Kaiser tanks down the corner to buy a gallon of milk.
 
Change can be painful and this gas thing is very painful to lots of people. LOts of people making lots of money off the pain.


I just dont believe our society cant figure this out. Its just petroleum-- give it up; Its the mobility you want and the lifestyle, not the darn oil!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_berry&sid=air._Othgtuc

Offshore Drilling Claims Are a Political Hoax: Commentary by John M. Berry

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- It's absurd to argue that ending the moratorium on drilling off parts of the U.S. coasts would quickly bring down the high price of gasoline.


d
 
I just dont believe our society cant figure this out. Its just petroleum-- give it up; Its the mobility you want and the lifestyle, not the darn oil!

I think if it were really that simple, most people would have changed a long time ago. The fact is, there are no options that give us a comparable alternative in place that a larger % of people have access to. We need an option that competes on all accounts, performance, size, payload capacity, range and price. Without this, oil will just always be a better choice for most.

For an example, think about the size of a battery needed to push an 18-wheeler loaded with 80,000lbs of cargo over a thousand miles in a 36hour period. This is the reality of their job and won't change. A prius sized car won't move the freight, period. If we could get that therotical battery and drive system down to a reasonable size and make it at a cost that could be amortized over the battery's life span to a cost that's comparable to gasoline for the same distance, and if the performance and cost of the motors were also comparable, then you'd have something that many truckers would buy and would gladly switch too. The issue right now is that it is techinically and/or financially impossible to create such a device. It is the pure and simple economics and technology of the situation that causes this to be true. Changing the price of oil to some artificially high number does not fix this technical problem. In fact, it only makes it worse. The prices of all the alternatives will always (by definition) be higher than the most attractive option. This is a basic economic principal.

Trucks carry the most cargo and also use the most fuel. Until we have a solution that helps them and reduces their transportation cost, we don't have a solution, not a real solution. What we really have in all the alternative ideas are things known as compromises. Compromises are not better, they are trade-offs by definition. Think about that. You can trade performance for economy, or capacity for economy, or cost for economy (which really isn't economy it's lying). All of these trade-offs are not better, they are just sales pitches. This is a very simple. We are better off buying the oil and finding more of it, or creating other fuels to power the ICE than we are wasting money on alternatives that will ALWAYS COST MORE than the oil. Alternative market items cannot, by defintion, cost less unless they are actually better at the largest scale. We can all wish like crazy that this wasn't true, but wishing doesn't change things fellas.
 
dallasfoto said:
At a party last night, in Dallas, I heard someone say that "whew gas is dropping again...I think I will get that Escalade afterall." A mere twenty five cent drop down from 4 dollars had this asshole thinking already about a big new car.

Until gasoline hits 25 bucks a gallon, American drivers will continue to drive Kaiser tanks down the corner to buy a gallon of milk.

I hope it drops enough, so that people think 18 miles to the gallon is good again. Then maybe I can sell my GMC Envoy and get a plugin. :twisted: Right now, even though this one is a 6 cylinder, SUV's are like Kryptonite and there is quite a glut, even in my area where you really need 4 wheel drive.
 
as some of you know i drive a truck for a living and at this point the only way to move freight without using oil would be to convert all the
desil electric trains to all elecric
the nice thing is all they would have to do is to run electric lines over the tracks like they already do for some of these metro trains so it is doable
the only problem is there are not nearly enough tracks to accomadate the amount of freight out there and they are very slow at getting goods were they need to go
 
sometimes youu will see a truck trailer going down the rails and this is a little cheaper than having a driver pull it
but it only works for goods that are not time sensitive
a train might take 3 days to do what a driver can do in one
just my 2 cents
 
i think the only viable way to get trucks off oil would be this
a electric truck that runs on a hydrogen fuel cell
electricity can turn water into hydrogen then hydrogen would be put in a fuel cell on the truck
and that would make electricity to power the electric motors
only problem is they dont have a cost effective hydrogen fuel cell yet
but if they ever do i belive it could work
 
justin_le said:
Link said:
Well...I wish it was that simple.

I'd like to see more progress being made in EVs, but I don't want to see it done by way of a stick (unaffordable gasoline) as opposed to a carrot (cheaper, more efficient). It puts the wrong idea into the heads of the masses. "Oh, I had to get an electric car because I couldn't afford gas." vs. "EVs FTW!"

I'm a massive fan of the stick. If that's what it takes for our lazy-ass society to finally change, then so be it.

-Justin

I normally enjoy using the beatin' stick, too, but not when I'm the one getting whacked with it. :(
 
nutsandvolts said:
If you wish for the price of fuel to rise, you're also wishing for increase in price of food and just about everything else. Tremendous amounts of fuel are used for food production and delivery. Perhaps that's the problem, but the methodology isn't about to change.
Yeah, what is everyone rich in here or something. I know what the real reason is, you have stock or an ev business or no car. Thats why you want higher gas prices. Its all about money as usual.
 
I'm in favor of high fuel prices, to make people change their habits and make the world a better place to live. This is how I understood what EMF said in another thread on this forum.

US gas & diesel is too cheap because it is heavily subsidised by taxpayers. I wouldn't mind a big tax on fuel, to fund a switch from oil to alternative energies. Then maybe we could quit fighting over oil in the Middle East, and quit funding those enemies by purchasing oil from them.

I'm well aware that higher fuel prices will make everything I buy more expensive, including food. I'm okay with that. Over the past year or two, I've reduced and/or eliminated unnecessary expenses, and prepared for hardship during this recession.

My plan is to ensure high fuel prices hurt wasteful assholes more than they hurt me.
 
I vote "free-market".

nutsandvolts said:
If you wish for the price of fuel to rise, you're also wishing for increase in price of food and just about everything else. Tremendous amounts of fuel are used for food production and delivery. Perhaps that's the problem, but the methodology isn't about to change.

A lot of fertilizer is petroleum-based as well. We are literally eating oil, as well as using 'lots of it to power farming equipment.

There's hope, though: more people than ever are "growing their own", as well as participating in CSA (community supported agriculture) programs. Even apartment dwellers who have small balconies can grow quite a bit of their own veggies using self-watering containers like Earthboxes. And, the recent hysteria regarding salmonella from Mexican grown peppers is helping to raise the awareness of where food we eat comes from and how growing one's own is beneficial to one's health and the environment.

Check out these links for more info:

http://www.earthbox.com
http://www.rooftopgardens.ca
http://100milediet.org/
http://www.fritzhaeg.com/garden/initiatives/edibleestates/main.html
 
Bosozoku

These are young Japanese motorcycle and car gangs that ride around on their shit vehicles without mufflers or install certain tail pipes for the soul purpose of making noise just to annoy people trying to sleep at night. Or, in my case, just before dawn. They screwed up my sleeping pattern just a few weeks ago.

It's worse during the summer because most people can't shut their windows due to the summer heat, and these punk kids know this. They're just wasting gas and disturbing the peace for no good reason. It doesn't do anybody any good.

I find it odd that there's no noise regulation here. I suspect that if the government started regulating noise pollution, it would infringe on the rights of Japan Nationalists who spew their propaganda over PA on top of their busses and vans. We wouldn't want that now would we?

So yeah, it would be nice 8) to see the day when these kids are not able to afford gas.

J
 
Here's my take on the "High vs Low Fuel Prices" debate:
Keep prices high but exact a windfall tax and apply it to subsidising electric vehicles (either the finished car/bike or Litium batteries or both). Ideally make the "cashback" on finished vehicles inversely proportional to their weight, so ebikes would get a 50% tax rebate, electric motorbikes a 30% rebate and cars a 10-20% rebate.

As far as the "gas trucks are essential" debate goes, part of the answer is better logistics: it's illogical to buy a widget from Alberquerque if you live in NY and they can be made in NY; if that is going on then fuel isn't expensive enough to force more local manufacture. Long distance hauling should be by electric railway(railroad).

As far as the "food is oil dependent" debate is concerned: I read a Polish website concerning biodiesel where they said that one hectare of biodiesel cultivation allowed fuelling of tractors etc to cultivate 6 hectares of land. That seems a viable system even if fuelling transport in general with biodiesel is unethical. And as far a "fertilizer is oil-based" is concerned, green-manure crops are the long-term solution, perhaps.

There.. tear that to pieces! :D
 
paultrafalgar said:
I read a Polish website concerning biodiesel where they said that one hectare of biodiesel cultivation allowed fuelling of tractors etc to cultivate 6 hectares of land.

Earth Biofuels Spins Off LNG Subsidiary in Consideration for Majority Ownership of PNG Ventures
07 July, 2008

Dallas, Texas (July 7, 2008) — Earth Biofuels, Inc. (OTCBB: EBOF) today announced the closing of a share exchange with PNG Ventures, Inc. (OTCBB: PNGX) that has resulted in PNGX acquiring EBOF’s wholly-owned subsidiary, New ELNG, LLC, which includes Applied LNG Technologies USA, LLC (“ALT”) and its related LNG business, in exchange for the transfer to EBOF of a majority ownership of PNGX.
With the acquisition, PNGX is now positioned to grow ALT’s LNG business of producing and distributing liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) as a transportation fuel. As a result, Earth Biofuels’ management believes its shareholders will benefit through the Company’s ownership in PNGX. Kevin Markey, former Vice President of Sales for ALT, will be serving as interim CEO of PNGX.

LNG is becoming a fuel of choice among large fleet operators who are seeking cleaner and less costly options to traditional diesel fuel. At current oil and gas prices and tax incentive programs, LNG is between one half and two thirds the cost of petroleum diesel as a fuel for vehicles, depending on the customer. Additionally, emissions of greenhouse gases and particulate matter from LNG-powered vehicles are significantly lower than those from petroleum diesel-powered vehicles.

The spin-off transaction is an important part of EBOF’s restructuring plan, described in its SEC report on Form 8-K filed on 21 November 2007. The share exchange has allowed EBOF to restructure its financial obligations and pursue its main focus of biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol production and alternative fuels distribution.

EBOF’s CEO, Dennis McLaughlin, stated, “Our management believes this transaction will unlock the value of the company’s LNG business and allow it to grow both in terms of production capacity as well as market penetration. The management of PNGX will be able to focus on growing the LNG business as a pure play, and EBOF and its shareholders will benefit through its substantial ownership of a significant player in the fast growing LNG industry.”

Earth Biofuels, Inc. endeavors to produce and distribute biodiesel fuel and cellulosic ethanol through wholesale and retail outlets. The biodiesel fuel is sold under Willie Nelson's brand name, "BioWillie®." The Company's Web site is http://www.earthbiofuels.com.
 
I voted for higher fuel prices for several reasons:
1. Yeah its gonna hurt the poor and middle class most with higher prices, but we have a means of government that allows peaceful change in policies! Let our own self interest do the voting!
2. My self interest is online education! My wife and I are both online educators (she does have to commute to her somewhat old-fashioned college) but this whole energy thing is only serving to further the cause of distance learning! I wont turn this into a treatis, and I well know that all things cannot be taught remotely, but if even surgeons can practice remotely with robots, there is room for improvement in our educational systems!!! It could be a boon to folks who really want to learn, but cant for geographic and transportation issues!
Just my 2 miliwatts worth!
otherDoc
 
We need to make gas $12 a gallon, like Europe. As of this morning, the average pretax cost of a gallon of gas was $2.95. that would leave $9 in revinue for building a better public transportation infrastructure.. More busses, more comuter trains, more walking and cycling paths. Imagine a city full of covered sidewalks?

To realy get off our oil dependancy, though, we need some major event to drasticly change the way people think. you have to make consumerism unpopular. Oil is only partialy used for Gas. its in our clothing, our houses, our food, our medicines, in every part of our life.

We as Americans buy and throw away more than any other nation in the world. By international standards, even the welfare poor have a higher standard of living than 80% of the world.

We throw away sox when they get a hole. We throw out a tv when the new model comes out. Being caught carring last years cellphone model is socail death, and we need the latest iPhone or we might get passed over for the next promotion, ect, ect, ect.

Untill that trend stops, we'll never get off oil, but hurting the financial bottom line is the first step in a social change.
 
If they make it 12 though like in Europe, then we need to roll in nation health care into it as this is one reason their gas is higher over there.

One thing I would REALLY like to see rolled into the cost of gas, is comprehensive insurance premiums. That way, every time someone buys gas, they are also buying insurance. There are too many uninsured drivers on the road.

OR! Really crack down on unlicensed and uninsured motorists and get them off the roads. Impound their cars and sell them. I think there is a very hefty percentage of folks on the road now with ZERO insurance. This would save A lot of gas.
 
emf i love the insurance rolled into gas idea but just liability it would be up to the owner for comp and collision ins
 
There's an interesting Op-Ed piece in the New York Times about how Denmark achieved energy independence.
Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn’t happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)

What was the trick? To be sure, Denmark is much smaller than us and was lucky to discover some oil in the North Sea. But despite that, Danes imposed on themselves a set of gasoline taxes, CO2 taxes and building-and-appliance efficiency standards that allowed them to grow their economy — while barely growing their energy consumption — and gave birth to a Danish clean-power industry that is one of the most competitive in the world today. Denmark today gets nearly 20 percent of its electricity from wind. America? About 1 percent.

(snip)

In 1973, said Hedegaard, “we got 99 percent of our energy from the Middle East. Today it is zero."

(snip)

“I have observed that in all other countries, including in America, people are complaining about how prices of [gasoline] are going up,” Denmark’s prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, told me. “The cure is not to reduce the price, but, on the contrary, to raise it even higher to break our addiction to oil. We are going to introduce a new tax reform in the direction of even higher taxation on energy and the revenue generated on that will be used to cut taxes on personal income — so we will improve incentives to work and improve incentives to save energy and develop renewable energy.”

(snip)

“We’ve had 35 new competitors (in wind turbines) coming out of China in the last 18 months,” said Engel, “and not one out of the U.S.”
Now of course Denmark is a much smaller country than the US and Canada. There's no denying that high energy prices are hurting a lot of Americans, especially those not so well off. Continued high energy prices will force a lot of gut-wrenching changes, development of public transit in the suburbs, and increases in telecommuting, etc. I do worry that if we (the US) continue to take the easy way out of the energy challenge, we'll fall more and more behind the rest of the world in the race to alternative energy sources.
 
If it must be a price increase, it is better that it happen slowly to allow emerging substitutes to mature properly.

how bad would it be to cause many to invest much in something that was forced on the market quickly out of necessity that had not been proven, only to see it be unreliable and a money pit.

better to get as many bugs worked out as possible. It is typically wealthy folks who venture into the costly unknown that endure the cost of the recalls, if it is rolled out slowly.
 
Good points TPA! Each new technology must be tested and found to be better in many ways better than those that came before it, otherwise, reality will bite hard over time when it's shown that it really costs more or performs poorly. This is why I think lower prices of oil are still overall better for the advancement of alternative fuels. Lower prices mean we have more to invest on the alternatives and the costs of raw materials will be lower making it easier to experiment. Experimentation costs money because you have to fail a bunch to find the perfect solution. If budgets are tight because people/companies/institutions are paying inflated prices for commodities/services etc, then they won't be able to spend as much researching alternative energy sources. It's not yet a foregone conclusion that any specific alternative energy source can fully replace oil as the primary fuel source of our economy. We still must continue to research and develop those that seem promisin.
I was thinking about what you said paultrafalgar
As far as the "gas trucks are essential" debate goes, part of the answer is better logistics: it's illogical to buy a widget from Alberquerque if you live in NY and they can be made in NY; if that is going on then fuel isn't expensive enough to force more local manufacture. Long distance hauling should be by electric railway(railroad).
on the surface this idea seems reasonoable, however in reality it's very difficult or impossible to implement. Too much of what we use and need comes from areas separated by hundreds or even thousands of miles. I travel the country often, and it's clear that there are huge differences in the products produced around this nation. For instance, in Indiana, you have steel mills which produce steel for the many industries including the auto industry. Then south of that millions and millions of acres of corn. Gettting that corn to major cities requires trucking and moving the steel to where it's used also requires trucking. Move a bit to the south east and you find prime conditions for growing citrus which must be moved to locations all around the nation. Come over here to Texas and you find vast plains supporting millions of cattle which feed the nation, all which must be shipped, likewise all around the nation.
Each area has specialties and products that are used around the country and around the world. Without shipping, you'd have no way to sell whatever it is you produce to the rest of the world. Do you propose that each person grow or create everything he or she needs himself on his own property? Don't you think this is impossible given the number of people in this country and the number of different products needed to support all that we do? Economies of scale have given rise to very specilized but very efficient business that products specific products. Shipping has made it possible. Without that, the entire economy would crumble and billions of people around the world would starve.
 
Back
Top