poll: do you wish for higher fuel prices or lower

[paultrafalgar]

Yes, I acknowledge it's a big problem, shame we didn't start fixing it earlier. Maybe this is part of the solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gHpjFlDk1Q

 

[TylerDurden]

Trucks are only needed for local delivery. Trains can handle the long hauls more efficiently, even with refrigerated goods.

 

[truckerzero]

trains wont work for long distances here is the problem
a long time ago all manufacturing buisnesses switched to a system called "just in time"
that way they dont have to have big warehouses they just get the loads just in time
this wont work with trains because they may be cheaper but they are very slow and delivery dates are not consistant and unreliable
so much in fact a while back jb hunt was putting some of their trailors on trains to save money but a lot of loads were missing
their appointmets at ford motor company and they told jb hunt if they ship any more of thier auto parts on the rail any more they
were going to drop jb hunt and go to another trucking co that doesnt use trains to transport their trailors
you see a trucker can show up at a company in the afternoon pick up a load and deiver it up to 600 miles away by the next morning
and their is just no way to do that with a train
think about it a local trucker has to go to pick up the trailer then go to the train yard to put it on the train
then it weights till the whole train is loaded then goes werever then has to be picked up by another local driver on the other end
and delivered to the customer and that is much much slower than to just grab and go like a over the road trucker can do

 

[paultrafalgar]

Good point, truckerzero. Makes me wonder why it is that trains are said to be more efficient than trucks. Is it:
1) Trains use diesel-electric power sources and these are more efficient? If so, couldn't we make diesel-electric trucks AS efficient (nowadays we would call that a hybrid)?
2) Steel rails offer less rolling resistance than tarmac?
3) Bigger vehicles (trains) are more efficient?
4) Rail is favoured because remotely-generated electricity could be more ecologically generated?
5) Any other reason you can suggest?

In any case, as you imply, trucks can do a more direct route than trains: the journey is factory to destination rather than factory to railhead to railhead to destination. Any one have the answers to this?

 

[truckerzero]

trains are more efficent mainly for one reason aerodynamics the engine cuts through the air and then all those cars behind it dont have to
if a train has 100 cars it only has to cut a hole in the air one time for a hundred cars but 100 trucks have to cut 100 holes in the air

 

[truckerzero]

that gave me a idea just let trucks convoy at a close distance mayby even link them to gether that would save lots of fuel
but the idividual truckers would not have the option to stop at their favorite truck stop to flirt with the waitreses lol

 

[paultrafalgar]

In that case - road trains! The Aussies use them a lot - any upside-down people got data?

 

[TPA]

A Speed Racer Mammoth Car!

 

[mcstar]

trains are more efficent mainly for one reason aerodynamics the engine cuts through the air and then all those cars behind it dont have to
if a train has 100 cars it only has to cut a hole in the air one time for a hundred cars but 100 trucks have to cut 100 holes in the air

Perfect point truckerzero! In Physics we talk about a concept called the surface-area-to-volume ratio. The smaller it is, the more efficient you are at cutting through the air. Since about 90% of the power used to go over about 30mph is used to overcome wind resistance, anything we can do to decrease the surface area to volume ratio will go a long way to increase efficiency. I cannot tell you how often I have to address this issue when it comes to discussing the efficiency of trains. If we made our transports, narrow, low, and loooooong, then we could reduce their air footprint, but such a vehicle would be a bitch to load!

 

[truckerzero]

road train grea idea! did not know any thing like that exsisted you aussies got it right
but the safty police probably wont alow it here but who knows here is a picture i found on the net
ps driving one of those would be really cool
maby it pay better since its more dangerous lol

 

[swbluto]

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.

I'm pretty sure that's not the "primary" reason. A more significant reason would have to be the far greater population density of Europe and the associated pollutant density and congestion if gasoline was affordable enough to enable massively "mass" personal transportation. Instead, you'll find that many more Europeans opt not to drive and participate in mass transportation which has the effect of 1) Lessened individual transportation costs(Which increases personal disposable income) and 2) Far less pollution.

Heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Basically, individuals will pursue self-interests even if it's against the "greater" welfare of the group and their own longterm benefit(Which mostly comes from the other individuals in the group with similar thinking). Unless that behavior is deservedly taxed, resources will be exhausted more quickly and more intensely(Such as clean air and the associated health benefits). Gas is also considered a "negative externality", which is similar in concept.

 

[swbluto]

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.

At what point does a luxury transform into a necessity such that it's a "beating" rather than "relinquishment"(even if economically forced)?

 

[vanilla ice]

I've often thought it would neat if trucks or other vehicles could link up together to draft. There are a few programs out there exploring this. One that comes to mind is the AI driven cars that get their own "carpool lane" with road magnets and/or optical cues for the computer, they drive inches from each other. I forget who all was doing these research projects, google probably can tell.

 

[Link]

I normally enjoy using the beatin' stick, too, but not when I'm the one getting whacked with it.

At what point does a luxury transform into a necessity such that it's a "beating" rather than "relinquishment"(even if economically forced)?

When it's your parent's car and you get less stuff because more money's going to the pump. :?

Damn, I can't wait to move out...

 

[EMF]

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.

I'm pretty sure that's not the "primary" reason. A more significant reason would have to be the far greater population density of Europe and the associated pollutant density and congestion if gasoline was affordable enough to enable massively "mass" personal transportation. Instead, you'll find that many more Europeans opt not to drive and participate in mass transportation which has the effect of 1) Lessened individual transportation costs(Which increases personal disposable income) and 2) Far less pollution.

Heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Basically, individuals will pursue self-interests even if it's against the "greater" welfare of the group and their own longterm benefit(Which mostly comes from the other individuals in the group with similar thinking). Unless that behavior is deservedly taxed, resources will be exhausted more quickly and more intensely(Such as clean air and the associated health benefits). Gas is also considered a "negative externality", which is similar in concept.

I think it is. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/03/gas-taxes-in-europe-350-440-per-gallon.html

Gas in Europe $3.50-$4.40 per Gallon, FOR TAXES
THE ECONOMIST--Petrol prices have risen as the oil price has increased. But the driver's pain at the pump differs across countries, dependent in part on the proportion of the cost that is paid in taxes. Turks have the most reason to feel aggrieved, closely followed by the British. Americans still enjoy relatively cheap fuel—they pay far less in tax than drivers elsewhere.

For Americans, it could be a lot worse. Just the gasoline tax in Turkey, U.K., Netherlands, Germany, S. Korea and France ranges from about $4.40 in Turkey to $3.50 in France, which is more than gas costs here INCLUDING all taxes!

This is from a blog last March 25, 2008.

Where we get in trouble is that unlike Europe, we are much more spread out. (I've been there a few times) A country over there is like a state here as far as distance goes. So those people don't drive as many miles I don't think. Also, they had to drive smaller cars due to high gas or go bankrupt, so you can get some great mileage there. Over here we all drive a freakin' battleship. I have a friend in Ireland that has a little 3 cylinder car that gets like 50 miles to the gallon. Finally, in our stupidity, and to be fair, due to cheap gas for so long, we avoided funding mass transit, as we can just hop in a car and go. Europe has great public transit in a lot of places.

Plus, I swear there gas is different than ours- but this is just my opinion from driving there. I know once I filled my car up and then I touched my eye- and the darn thing swoll (swelled?) shut! We got some hellacious mileage with that gas LOL!

Anyways, using your logic - which is solid and my personal observations, you and I should figure that gas would actually be CHEAPER in Europe, since they do not place as much demand on the pumps, but it isn't. Ergo, for that reason, hence, in consequence, so, then, therefore, thus, it has to be the bloody taxes!

 

[EMF]

I normally enjoy using the beatin' stick, too, but not when I'm the one getting whacked with it.

At what point does a luxury transform into a necessity such that it's a "beating" rather than "relinquishment"(even if economically forced)?

When it's your parent's car and you get less stuff because more money's going to the pump. :?

Damn, I can't wait to move out...

If you get along well with your parents NEVER LEAVE!!!! :lol: Stay there and rat hole your money or play the stock market and parlay it into a fortune - all the while acting as though you don't have 2 pennies to rub together. Also, keep going to school and acquire more and more advanced degrees. This will keep your parents proud and make it tough for them to ask you to move out.

I have one friend that has like 3 or 4 advanced degrees- at least one PHD- but he is still going to college! He never wants to leave school! He said he can't survive on the "outside" and even said once, that he fell there and can't get up!!!

 

[swbluto]

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.

I'm pretty sure that's not the "primary" reason.

I think it is. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/03/gas-taxes-in-europe-350-440-per-gallon.html

Gas in Europe $3.50-$4.40 per Gallon, FOR TAXES
THE ECONOMIST--Petrol prices have risen as the oil price has increased. But the driver's pain at the pump differs across countries, dependent in part on the proportion of the cost that is paid in taxes. Turks have the most reason to feel aggrieved, closely followed by the British. Americans still enjoy relatively cheap fuel—they pay far less in tax than drivers elsewhere.

For Americans, it could be a lot worse. Just the gasoline tax in Turkey, U.K., Netherlands, Germany, S. Korea and France ranges from about $4.40 in Turkey to $3.50 in France, which is more than gas costs here INCLUDING all taxes!

This is from a blog last March 25, 2008.

Where we get in trouble is that unlike Europe, we are much more spread out. (I've been there a few times) A country over there is like a state here as far as distance goes. So those people don't drive as many miles I don't think. Also, they had to drive smaller cars due to high gas or go bankrupt, so you can get some great mileage there. Over here we all drive a freakin' battleship. I have a friend in Ireland that has a little 3 cylinder car that gets like 50 miles to the gallon. Finally, in our stupidity, and to be fair, due to cheap gas for so long, we avoided funding mass transit, as we can just hop in a car and go. Europe has great public transit in a lot of places.

Plus, I swear there gas is different than ours- but this is just my opinion from driving there. I know once I filled my car up and then I touched my eye- and the darn thing swoll (swelled?) shut! We got some hellacious mileage with that gas LOL!

Anyways, using your logic - which is solid and my personal observations, you and I should figure that gas would actually be CHEAPER in Europe, since they do not place as much demand on the pumps, but it isn't. Ergo, for that reason, hence, in consequence, so, then, therefore, thus, it has to be the bloody taxes!

I thought you were arguing that the reason why their gas taxes are pretty high is to, primarily, support their implied financial hemorrhage of a health-care system in which case, I'm responding, it isn't. However, I could see where the decreased amount of driving, in general, could provide an incentive to countries to up the taxes, additionally beyond public-good reasons, since the cost of pre-tax gasoline, in proportion to their incomes, would be less as compared to America where everything is sooo far apart.

I think it's pretty obvious their high gas prices are due to their taxes so I see we agree there. But, errr... local demand doesn't dictate the pre-taxed price of gasoline nearly as much as global demand, so you wouldn't see it being much cheaper in Europe even if there were absolutely no local demand. If the price of gasoline dropped due to decreased local demand, then there'd be quite a lucrative export market from Europe. You'll see here at http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oil_comes_from.htm that the vast majority of oil imports into the US come from non-middle-eastern countries. However, during the OPEC supply decreases during the 1970's, you'll see that the price of gasoline in the US sky-rocketed to historic highs even though "local" supply and demand really didn't change, demonstrating that global demand and supply play a much greater part in determining prices.

 

[EMF]

I thought you were arguing that the reason why their gas taxes are pretty high is to, primarily, support their implied financial hemorrhage of a health-care system in which case, I'm responding, it isn't.

I am and I still disagree. I think that the reason the gas is so high there is due to heavy taxation to support their social programs- one of which is health care. Obviously, they have other uses for the tax- such as probably road funds.

However, I could see where the decreased amount of driving, in general, could provide an incentive to countries to up the taxes, additionally beyond public-good reasons, since the cost of pre-tax gasoline, in proportion to their incomes, would be less as compared to America where everything is sooo far apart.

I'm was not saying that either. I am not drawing a correlation between taxation and gas demand ( though I think now this is definately a factor - didn't think about that before) . I am saying you would think that since they use a lot less fuel due to less personal driving, that gas ( prior to taxation) would be cheaper there due to less demand. California alone uses more gas than any European country. But we can see that gas is the same price there only they have a lot more taxes added on to the price. Their taxes alone are equal to what we pay for a gallon of gas.

 

[rguy56]

It's really amazing. We will c*r*a*p on our planet without blinking as long as we can do it for free. Not every conscious individual, of course, but as the human race.

Charge us enough money, and then it has some meaning to us.

Sad, but true.

Bob

 

[mcstar]

Perhaps not everyone thinks we are c*r*a*p*i*n*g on the planet. Actually the planet does quite well with crap on it. Think about it. Plenty of things eat the stuff (plants being a major one). Since Global Warming is showing itself to be a farce, it appears the sky was not really falling after all. When the largest sheet of ice ever breaks off an ice berg you can look at it two ways. You could say "hey, the planet must be warming" or you could say "there must be an awful lot of ice this year if sheets that big are breaking off".

 

[dazzassj6]

i cant believe the majority voted for high fuel prices.

No they will never have renewable "green" energy. Why do i say that?

because in order for oil companies to still profit from you as well as selling a 'green' energy they have ALREADY came up with an alternative.

And that is hydrogen fuel cells. That type of energy is not renewable. It just makes the air cleaner, and they are the same people thats profiting from the high fuel prices right now! And trust me hydrogen fuel cells arent cheap either, dont think it will ever be as cheap as electricity.

Thats why they stopped the production of electric cars because it poses a threat to their big industry!!! Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" if you don't believe me.

My opinion on this is to lower fuel prices for now, and have INDEPENDENT manufactuers which will create CHEAP and CLEAN alternative energy powered vehicles such as what china has been doing for the past 5 years.

We all know the oil companies will sell another brand of energy after gas(petrol) as another way of making money. We do we need to pay more when theres already a technology we can all benefit from.

 

[paultrafalgar]

We do we need to pay more when theres already a technology we can all benefit from.

Homo sapiens doesn't need to pay more to know he must use less fossil fuels, however, the Neanderthal majority do. That's why gas prices need to be higher.

 

[swbluto]

Thats why they stopped the production of electric cars because it poses a threat to their big industry!!! Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" if you don't believe me.

I don't buy that argument. The economics of electric cars back then didn't make sense when gas was so cheap. Now that the economics make more sense(or have over the past year), you'll notice that there are more car companies offering electric cars OF THEIR OWN INITIATIVE. Yeah, they are REALLY with-holding the technology from us on purpose, aren't they? The truth is, companies will not invest huge sums of money into a product if it isn't profitable for their company or it isn't knowingly profitable. Look at the current Chevy volt! Do you think that something that costed twice as much as a gasoline vehicle but yet had worse batteries and performance characteristics back in 1990-2001 would've sold well and a time when "green" was a term reserved for radical tree-huggers?

 

[mcstar]

I agree with you SW. Here's something else to keep in mind though. Not only is Hydrogen not cheap, it suffers from an even bigger problem if you think about the effects. Quick, who knows what the largest "green house" gas is. If you think back to college they probably taught it to you then. The answer is water vapor. It's about 10 times more affective at trapping heat than CO2. Water vapor has a very high latent heat capacity and this allows it capture much of the irradiated heat from the sun. Without it CO2 notwithstanding, the earth would be a frozen wasteland. By increasing the water vapor in the air with millions of cars, you'd increase the supposed global warming affect 100fold. The fact is that the Hydrogen car is at the end of a process of converting liquid water into water vapor which traps much more heat than than CO2. If we are really worried about global warming, then a hydrogen car will just make matters worse.

I for one don't buy the GW argument. Way too much historical information has been collected by scientists that show that avg global temperature is a leading indicator that changes before CO2 levels, not a lagging one. This means that there is something about the change in temperature that actually causes the change in CO2 (probably growth in the animal populations due to lusher greener plant life). Either way the CO2 we release is a drop in the ecological bucket and the observed reality doesn't match the predicted one. However, If you think that the government has too much regulation and power already, just wait till the green crowd starts realizing the effect that an increase in water vapor has on atmosphere. Atmospheric change would then will happen much quicker. I'm not convinced it would be bad change, but it would definately happen quicker.

 

[swbluto]

Hmmmm. That's an interesting suspicion of a Hydrogen Economy's effect on "Greenhouse gases". I'll have to think about that. It seems that if the hydrogen was extracted from water resources that'll eventually evaporate anyways, it sounds like you'd just increase the rate of evaporation which means more rain and usually more rain means colder temperatures. However, I heard most hydrogen at current is economically released from some hydrocarbon(like oil, I suppose) which certainly doesn't help the fight against greenhouse gases! But what I've heard is subject to verification and economic analysis, so... don't quote me. :lol: