PDA

View Full Version : News says crude oil price dropped so..



Rich Engelhardt
10-31-2014, 11:48 AM
naturally, the price of gas is going up.:confused::rolleyes::mad:

One station by me was charging $2.69 a gallon a few days ago before the so called price drop.
Now everyone is $2.89/$2.99 a gallon.


Glad I filled up a few days ago!

David Weaver
10-31-2014, 12:11 PM
Not sure what the spot market is doing, but it's probably responsible for local price increases. Be glad you don't live over the border. It's still $3.29 here other than at sams, and it hasn't gone below that. (western pa).

Scott Shepherd
10-31-2014, 12:38 PM
Just filled up at lunch, $2.54.

Brian Deakin
10-31-2014, 6:12 PM
In the United kingdom the current price of petrol is $8.03 per US. gallon

regards Brian

Garth Almgren
10-31-2014, 6:17 PM
Ours has been going down for a couple weeks. It was 3.49 for quite a while, but as of this morning it's down to about 3.15. If I were to drive a little bit out of my way I could get it for 2.99, and I see on GasBuddy that a couple places are down to the 2.85 range.

George Bokros
10-31-2014, 6:26 PM
$2.87 by me. With Speedy Rewards and a prepaid gas card from Marc's gas at Speedway costs me $2.74.

Brian Elfert
10-31-2014, 7:26 PM
In the United kingdom the current price of petrol is $8.03 per US. gallon


Yes, and what is the price when taxes are removed? I've read that some places in Europe have lower gasoline prices than the USA when taxes are removed on both sides.

Brian Elfert
10-31-2014, 7:29 PM
For the past year or more crude prices and gasoline prices have not tracked each other as closely as in the past. Here in Minneapolis, the gas price jumped 30 cents a gallon a week or two ago. Refinery outages are being blamed for the high cost right now.

Jerome Stanek
11-01-2014, 7:54 AM
$2.87 by me. With Speedy Rewards and a prepaid gas card from Marc's gas at Speedway costs me $2.74.

Glad to see someone else use the Marcs cards. Keep telling my SIL to get them as she shops Marcs all the time and goes to Speedway but she won't and then complains about the price of gas

Shawn Pachlhofer
11-01-2014, 10:05 AM
gas prices charged by retailers don't necessarily follow the price for a barrel of crude oil.

and - since you live up north ("up north" is any place that gets cold :D ) - retailers could be switching to a cold-weather blend of fuel, which could increase price.

Chuck Wintle
11-01-2014, 12:25 PM
naturally, the price of gas is going up.:confused::rolleyes::mad:

One station by me was charging $2.69 a gallon a few days ago before the so called price drop.
Now everyone is $2.89/$2.99 a gallon.


Glad I filled up a few days ago!

where i live the price of gasoline seems to have no relation to the cost of crude oil. I have seen the price jump by 20 cents/liter overnight for no reason. I think they simply play with the price because the can. What real choice do motorist have to run their vehicles? Electric cars are still a long way from the mainstream. maybe we can just walk to our destination although I do not see doing this when its very cold in winter.

Myk Rian
11-01-2014, 12:42 PM
Yesterday, we saw regular under $3 for the first time in several years.

Rich Engelhardt
11-01-2014, 2:55 PM
What real choice do motorist have to run their vehicles?Exactly. There is no viable alternative.
They (who ever they are) got us over a barrel.

Jim Matthews
11-01-2014, 3:07 PM
Fuel costs in the US are a small component of most consumption budgets.

I believe the reason most of us beef about gas prices, is that we're burning
it to travel to jobs we don't much care for - so we can afford gas.

There's a real disconnection between most of us, and the things we consume.
The handling chain, from extaction to refining happens somewhere out of sight.

It's not as if the stuff comes out of the ground, ready to fill up your "Canyonero".

This complaint isn't new, and is easily explained by the amount of time consumed in each step.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130225-us-gas-price-spike-refineries/

Greg Peterson
11-02-2014, 12:54 PM
Yes, and what is the price when taxes are removed? I've read that some places in Europe have lower gasoline prices than the USA when taxes are removed on both sides.

I think it could be effectively argued that our gas prices are artificially low. Factor in the tax payer subsidies for the oil industry and our rather large presence in the form of armed forces abroad. Without these, our gasoline prices would likely be much higher.

Bring our armed forces back stateside and cut the subsidies and see what happens to pump prices. Redirect those subsidies and expenditures to developing battery technology, which is the real bottleneck in weening off oil. A trillion + dollars (and counting) spent on battery technology would have been money much better spent.

Scott Shepherd
11-02-2014, 2:03 PM
I think it could be effectively argued that our gas prices are artificially low. Factor in the tax payer subsidies for the oil industry and our rather large presence in the form of armed forces abroad. Without these, our gasoline prices would likely be much higher.

Bring our armed forces back stateside and cut the subsidies and see what happens to pump prices. Redirect those subsidies and expenditures to developing battery technology, which is the real bottleneck in weening off oil. A trillion + dollars (and counting) spent on battery technology would have been money much better spent.

Batteries are made from _____________? Where does that come from? The ground. The ground in the USA? Most likely, not. So we'd just be trading in one fuel that comes out of the ground in third world countries for another fuel that comes from the ground of third world countries.

People keep saying solar and batteries are the future, but Solar cells were invented in 1941 and they still aren't efficient enough to use without someone else paying for the equipment. After almost 75 years, you'd think if it were the answer, someone would have figured it out by now.

David Weaver
11-02-2014, 2:19 PM
Batteries are manufactured, too, so we would be outsourcing all of it. Nobody should kid themselves that many batteries will be made here. Where does lithium come from.

II think at this point, we are a net fossil fuel exporter. Fracking for gas and the liquid precipitates has revitalized this region. Not just gas, but jobs putting in infrastructure like pipeline work has really helped get a lot of our Union trades off the sidelines, and put money in their benefit and pension funds. Despite the publicity, there hasn't been much contamination, and most has been due to lazy handling of surface pools (and not the wells).

Brian Elfert
11-02-2014, 10:35 PM
Solar in many areas is now cost effective enough that it will pay for itself, eventually. The problem is most folks don't have the money to spend perhaps $20,000 today with the promise of payback over 20 years or more. Subsidies drive more people to choose solar.

Greg Peterson
11-02-2014, 11:00 PM
Batteries are made from _____________? Where does that come from? The ground. The ground in the USA? Most likely, not. So we'd just be trading in one fuel that comes out of the ground in third world countries for another fuel that comes from the ground of third world countries.

People keep saying solar and batteries are the future, but Solar cells were invented in 1941 and they still aren't efficient enough to use without someone else paying for the equipment. After almost 75 years, you'd think if it were the answer, someone would have figured it out by now.

Ask Germany about solar energy. Your argument is tired and backward. Without better battery technology, solar cells with several magnitudes of order improve efficiency are a waste.

Greg Peterson
11-02-2014, 11:03 PM
Batteries are manufactured, too, so we would be outsourcing all of it. Nobody should kid themselves that many batteries will be made here. Where does lithium come from.


Elon Musk is investing $500 million in a battery factory in America. There is no reason to think battery manufacturing would be outsourced. Actually, if battery technology were developed in the US, we would have a major, game changing competitive advantage over other nations. Sadly, many folks can't move past the mental image of a hippie driving an electric car. The country that develops a sustainable energy will be positioned to rule the world.

David Weaver
11-02-2014, 11:19 PM
There is a very simple reason to believe that batteries will be produced elsewhere. It'll be cheaper to do it, and it will probably involve less bureaucracy to do it elsewhere.

It's nice that elon musk wants to build batteries for $70,000 cars, but if the bulk of transit is to move to batteries, they will be produced overseas.

However, the very real result of fracking here is that coal plants are going offline, and that unfortunately puts miners out of work and also sends coal overseas so it can be burned dirty. But it does provide cleaner energy, and there's no great reason that regionally here, people couldn't drive more cars burning natural gas. One of my neighbors has one. It's indistinguishable from other cars as a commuter vehicle, but he has limited pump points because of distribution.

Batteries aren't going to be a common man item without crippling subsidies until nanomanufacturing is more common. And, it'll be done wherever it's cheapest.

If you can make something spec and ship it here cheaper than you can make it here, then it will be made somewhere else and shipped here.

I remember when we were going to make all kinds of solar cells here despite the fact they are made less expensively elsewhere. That's turned out to be a flop.

The reason oil, coal and natural gas work is because they are economically feasible for everyone, including rank and file. Making batteries at this point is not, especially if it's going to be done in the US. and before people decide they're going to make glitzy batteries, they should determine a distribution system so that you can swap your batteries out while you're on a long trip. Until they do the latter, the former is pointless.

David Weaver
11-02-2014, 11:20 PM
Solar in many areas is now cost effective enough that it will pay for itself, eventually. The problem is most folks don't have the money to spend perhaps $20,000 today with the promise of payback over 20 years or more. Subsidies drive more people to choose solar.

Well, and it depends on where you are. In western and central PA, there are plenty of places that it's pretty much pointless other than to send a message. The sun factor here is so low that the money is better spent elsewhere.

David Weaver
11-03-2014, 8:30 AM
Well, I have to revise a point above, we are users of about 16.5 million barrels of oil per day and producers of 9, so we are not net exporters of liquid fuels. 10 years ago, our production of oil was about 2 million barrels a day, though, and it's now 9.

No clue on coal production, natural gas production is definitely up. EIA's chart shows us a little better than 60% of oil met with domestic supply, and total energy getting close to net zero. There was an article in the WSJ about the US being a net energy exporter, but the EIA charts don't show it. Nonetheless, the fact that we're producing about 90% of the energy we use in total is a huge improvement over the situation 6 years ago.

Brian Elfert
11-03-2014, 8:42 AM
I think it could be effectively argued that our gas prices are artificially low. Factor in the tax payer subsidies for the oil industry and our rather large presence in the form of armed forces abroad. Without these, our gasoline prices would likely be much higher.


Even with subsidies here in the USA I've read that prices before taxes are cheaper in Europe than prices before taxes here.

Jason Roehl
11-03-2014, 8:59 AM
I'm just curious as to where all the energy to charge these batteries is going to come from if we abandon fossil fuels. I'll give you a hint: it's not wind, solar or hydro--those are piddle-power sources that couldn't come close to providing the energy needs of vehicles in the U.S. without blanketing the landscape with the monstrosities of "green" production.

Mike Null
11-03-2014, 9:21 AM
The net price a consumer pays for gas in Germany is roughly three times what we pay and has been for the twenty plus years I've been traveling to Germany.

Art Mann
11-03-2014, 9:44 AM
One article I just read stated that Germany collects about $0.65 per liter in fuel taxes. On top of that, they also charge a 19% value added tax. Taxes on a gallon of gas in Germany are more than the entire cost of a gallon in the United States. In other words, gasoline there would cost about what it does in the US if it were free excluding taxes. Germany is a socialist leaning country. That is what you would expect from their form of government.

Malcolm Schweizer
11-03-2014, 10:54 AM
Part of the fuel price issue has to do with something local (for me). Hovensa in St. Croix is a company that used to provide the majority of the eastern seaboard. It was the second largest refinery in the western hemisphere, and was so large that if it shut down for a day or two due to some maintenance issue, the price of fuel would go up on the east coast. Well two years ago, Hovensa shut down their St. Croix refinery. Suddenly a HUGE amount of supply of refined fuel was taken out of the US market. The refinery was losing money due to antiquated machinery and processes, and also was involved in a nightmare legal issue due to leaked oil, and the EPA had literally set up shop in-house. Ironically, one of the main reasons for the shutdown is that they used fuel to run the refinery, and more modern refineries used propane. How ironic- the price of fuel caused making fuel to be non cost-effective! The refinery as of this week entered into an agreement to be sold to a new firm that expects to start it up within the next two years and hire back 500 of the 930 displaced workers, as well as contracting 200 vendors.

As for the comments about solar, it has come a long way, and locally where we pay $0.58/KwH it is very cost effective to make the switch. In the US where the average is $0.13/KwH, it is still a gap, but as solar gets more efficient and also cheaper, electricity will continue to go up, and the gap will shorten. I am hoping to be able to go solar before long and say "bye bye" to WAPA (Water And Power Authority.)

As for wind- it is another excellent source of energy, but it does require a huge initial investment. If you go to Spain, you will see miles and miles of wind generators. I think within 10 years you will see a lot more of both solar and wind power. Locally, our airport is now mostly solar, and a huge solar field is being built that is going to sell power back to WAPA. (It is being built by a private firm who can sell the power to WAPA cheaper than they can generate it themselves.) Also as of the first of the year, WAPA is going to switch from diesel generators to propane, and supposedly our electric bills will go down by $50/month.

In addition, battery technology is getting better, but certainly it is the weak link for solar. For wind as well, but at least you can get wind at night or cloudy days, where solar is dependent upon the sun. My ideal system would be a combination of solar and wind, but because I live in the historic district, I cannot put a wind generator, and solar can only go on the parts of the roof that cannot be seen, which fortunately for me is the south-facing roof.

I would buy an electric car in a second except: (1.) They don't handle hills as well, and all I have are hills, and (2.) As mentioned above, at $0.58/KwH, it would not be much savings. If I went solar, perhaps I would consider it. I would be more interested in going propane.

Oh, one final note- what do I pay for fuel? $4.99/gallon. Stop complaining!!! ;):D

Dan Hunkele
11-03-2014, 12:17 PM
Takes electricity to charge batteries. Electric grids are already strained.

Greg Peterson
11-03-2014, 8:26 PM
Elton Musk is trying to get Tesla's down to the $30k price point.

I understand some don't care about clean air or clean water. They see safe guards preventing the fouling of the commons to be as restrictive as a minimum wage.

Unlike most of us here, Elton Musk and T Boone Pickens have put there money where their mouth is. I'm happy someone wants to invest in America and American workers.

Scott Shepherd
11-03-2014, 9:14 PM
I understand some don't care about clean air or clean water.

That's just non sense. Do you honestly think that anyone reading this thread wants to pollute water and air because we believe the environment doesn't matter? If so, you are sadly mistaken. I'd comment more, but I've got to load some chemicals in the back of the truck so I can go dump them in the local river just to watch plants and wildlife die.

Give me a break.

David Weaver
11-03-2014, 9:25 PM
Elton Musk is trying to get Tesla's down to the $30k price point.

I understand some don't care about clean air or clean water. They see safe guards preventing the fouling of the commons to be as restrictive as a minimum wage.

Unlike most of us here, Elton Musk and T Boone Pickens have put there money where their mouth is. I'm happy someone wants to invest in America and American workers.

I wouldn't use T boone pickens as the role model for anything. His objective was to pump the water right out from under amarillo and use alternative energy as a way to get the right of way to pump it and sell it.

I'm also not interested in your straw men.

I wonder what the people who need to buy a car would do now waiting for a $30K battery powered car. I guess they should just go without.

Leo Graywacz
11-03-2014, 9:36 PM
Fuel costs in the US are a small component of most consumption budgets.

I believe the reason most of us beef about gas prices, is that we're burning
it to travel to jobs we don't much care for - so we can afford gas.

There's a real disconnection between most of us, and the things we consume.
The handling chain, from extaction to refining happens somewhere out of sight.

It's not as if the stuff comes out of the ground, ready to fill up your "Canyonero".

This complaint isn't new, and is easily explained by the amount of time consumed in each step.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130225-us-gas-price-spike-refineries/

Well in the cold belt it has everything to do with heating fuels too. As a businessman fuel costs for vehicles add up quick.

Greg Peterson
11-05-2014, 10:06 AM
I wouldn't use T boone pickens as the role model for anything. His objective was to pump the water right out from under amarillo and use alternative energy as a way to get the right of way to pump it and sell it.

I'm also not interested in your straw men.

I wonder what the people who need to buy a car would do now waiting for a $30K battery powered car. I guess they should just go without.

T Boone Pickens took a $150 million dollar hit on wind energy. He is an oil man for sure, but he still believes wind is a viable energy source.

As for $30k for a car, I don't think that is out of reach for many consumers, especially when you consider the savings in gas. The average commuter's needs would be more than easily met with an electric vehicle.

No straw man argument here. On the one hand you dismiss Pickens as a greedy oil man, and then out of the other side of your mouth you chide Musk for trying to bring an affordable electric vehicle to market via American made goods. Very confusing.

David Weaver
11-05-2014, 10:23 AM
I don't think there's anything wrong with a 30k car. My point is that you have to make it, not just talk about making it or targeting it.

We were going to have fuel cell cars, too, but ultimately that will probably never be cheap enough. That's been a "hey, we'll do this inexpensively thing" at least since the 60s - they even made tractors powered by fuel cells.

For right now, we should be burning the natural gas and allowing the others to get cheap, not throwing money at the one that's not economically feasible while we ignore the other.

Think about the impact you'd have on actual energy use if you just burned the natural gas instead of using the natural gas to cook oil out of sand or refine it, etc. It's instant, immediate, and it takes very little to make a car run on natural gas. The big hurdle from my understanding is that the runs of the vehicles aren't large enough to make the cars natural gas to start, so they manufacture a gasoline car and then do makework to get it to run on natural gas.

The same is not true for batteries. We are far away from batteries being cheap, and most of the discussions I've seen (michio kaku does a good one on youtube) suspect that nanomanufacturing is the only way that batteries will be inexpensive and sparing on resources used to make them.

Personally, though, if I actually commuted by car, I'd be tempted to buy a leaf right now. That's the closest thing to a commuter's car (but it only commutes) - and it's also only made inexpensive because a great deal of it is paid for by other peoples' money when you buy it.

Just my opinion that the path from A to C will happen at the same rate (if you let the market demand it), but the trip will be cheaper if you stop at step B and it will not tax anyone financially to do it. It would probably have a more beneficial environmental effect, too, than wasting energy burning corn or cooking oil to make liquid fuel. The only real negative side effect is that you do have to give up some trunk space for a natural gas cylinder.

Jerry Thompson
11-05-2014, 11:15 AM
What fuel will be used to re-charge the batteries?

David Weaver
11-05-2014, 11:27 AM
Presumably in the future that will lean toward off-peak use of natural gas...which doesn't "burn dirty", and thus there's no great reason not to just burn the gas instead.

Bert Kemp
11-05-2014, 11:38 AM
Hey Scott wait for me i got about 20 gals of used motor oil to run down and dump in the river. Its great when cooking fish you don't have to oil the pan:eek: and the birds can't fly so you don't have to clean those pesky droppings off the car.give me a min and I'll think of some more advantages to making a mess of the environment. :(


That's just non sense. Do you honestly think that anyone reading this thread wants to pollute water and air because we believe the environment doesn't matter? If so, you are sadly mistaken. I'd comment more, but I've got to load some chemicals in the back of the truck so I can go dump them in the local river just to watch plants and wildlife die.

Give me a break.

Art Mann
11-05-2014, 11:39 AM
For right now, we should be burning the natural gas and allowing the others to get cheap, not throwing money at the one that's not economically feasible while we ignore the other.

Think about the impact you'd have on actual energy use if you just burned the natural gas instead of using the natural gas to cook oil out of sand or refine it, etc. It's instant, immediate, and it takes very little to make a car run on natural gas. The big hurdle from my understanding is that the runs of the vehicles aren't large enough to make the cars natural gas to start, so they manufacture a gasoline car and then do makework to get it to run on natural gas.

I believe you are over-simplifying the use of methane as an automotive fuel. First of all, the energy density of methane is very, very low unless you compress it into a liquid or at least a super high pressure gas. You are limited to a range about like current electric cars. The process of compression is expensive and dangerous. The challenge could be overcome but not without building a vast expensive infrastructure. Any vehicle which uses natural gas must include an expensive and potentially very dangerous (like as in highly explosive) pressure vessel. There is a reason this abundant and inexpensive fuel has never been accepted for use in vehicles. I think the best we can hope for is a means to convert methane into some form that is easier to carry and does not pose the tremendous risk of explosion in the case of a crash.

David Weaver
11-05-2014, 2:05 PM
Neighbor has a CNG civic. The range is about 225 miles.

I think the reason it's not used in vehicles in the past has to do with compression and distribution (though there are NG fill stations around here in several places that are open to the public and no problems here, as well as several fleet stations), and maybe to do with tanks, but tanks now are reliable and inexpensive to make.

There is no real problem at this point other than distribution of the fill stations and their compressors. There have been thousands of NG vehicles on the road for a while, and now quite a few passenger vehicles and no problems with any explosions of them. Presumably the tanks themselves, where they are located, would be one of the last things in the car to actually get damaged - they are designed to withstand regular fills of 3500 psi, and stronger than the rest of the car around them.

But distribution and lack of a problem for non-regional travel is an issue. I think the only real issue at this point (speaking from local experience here in gas land where there are actually public fill stations and people driving NG cars).

The biggest deterrent right now is the cars are priced like a car that is made entirely and then taken apart again to redo the fuel system when they really should only be very slightly more expensive than a gasoline powered car.

Pipeline building is going on here hand over fist, too, and if we keep developing more gas it's going to have to continue increasing its distribution reach to find customers for it. With local distribution comes the ability to put the gas in cars.

(the stations here, by the way, fill cars to about 2500 pounds, just in case you decide to fill your car on a cool morning and then let it sit in the sun all day on a hot day).

Dennis Peacock
11-05-2014, 2:59 PM
Let's please keep this on the OP's topic of interest.

David Weaver
11-05-2014, 3:10 PM
Is it that far off topic to talk about alternative motor fuels when the OP was posting a gripe about the price of gasoline?

Rich Engelhardt
11-05-2014, 3:49 PM
Is it that far off topic to talk about alternative motor fuels when the OP was posting a gripe about the price of gasoline?I'm all for a lot of leeway on topics,so, I'd say it's right in keeping with my original whine about the most recent un called for rise in gas prices.
The sooner we get out from under the thumb of the greedy oil/energy people the better.

David Weaver
11-05-2014, 4:00 PM
I'm not trying to be snotty by asking that question, of course, just an honest question. Most of the forums I've been on turn to crickets if no diversion is allowable at all.

Brian Elfert
11-05-2014, 4:15 PM
Whatever fuel is the next big thing will probably go up in cost due to demand and there will be a new group of greedy people to get mad at.

Kent A Bathurst
11-05-2014, 4:23 PM
I believe you are over-simplifying the use of methane as an automotive fuel. First of all, the energy density of methane is very, very low unless you compress it into a liquid or at least a super high pressure gas. You are limited to a range about like current electric cars. The process of compression is expensive and dangerous. The challenge could be overcome but not without building a vast expensive infrastructure. Any vehicle which uses natural gas must include an expensive and potentially very dangerous (like as in highly explosive) pressure vessel. There is a reason this abundant and inexpensive fuel has never been accepted for use in vehicles. I think the best we can hope for is a means to convert methane into some form that is easier to carry and does not pose the tremendous risk of explosion in the case of a crash.

I spent a couple weeks in Argentina a few years back - in the big cities and in the countryside. In every town of some size [I dunno - 5,00 population] the gas stations also have pumps for LNG as well as gasoline. Virtually every vehicle has a conversion kit, so it can run both LNG and gasoline. We had a hired car for a few days, to take us to remote [read: winery] regions, and I had time to talk with the driver.

At the time, the conversion kit cost worked out to be in the $8,000 range, IIRC. A separate LNG tank, a fuel source switch on the dash, and dual I also recall doing the break-even numbers - worked out to be 2 years +/-...all based on mileage, of course, and the LNG:Gas price spread at the time. The LNG range is limited [250 km sticks in my mind], but you have the OEM gas system still in place - throw the switch, and keep on going.

I have no idea what the infrastructure cost was - but, these LNG fill stations were everywhere, so I would have to guess that the costs are in line where a corner gas station/convenience store can install it, sell the product, and make a return.

As far as dangerous - these vehicles are literally everywhere. Ubiquitous is the correct work. It is the standard. I did not get into safety conversations, but I'm skeptical that it is a clear and present danger.

Argentina, of course, has abundant natural gas resources, and comparative doodly-squat for petroleum.


Art, my friend - I think you are tilting at the wrong windmill.

David Weaver
11-05-2014, 5:01 PM
Natural gas here for a GGE (gas gallon equivalent) in BTUs is $1.99. I really don't know how they even get to that price. I'd assume that the stations are tied in to the NG pipelines (of course they are) so what they cost in compressors is probably saved in the fact that the gas itself is inexpensive. That's 114,000 btus, and the actual commodity price with distribution for that is a dollar or less. I guess the rest is profit for the station owner? Because they don't have road tax on it as far as I know. The compressor cost is probably high enough initially that it will take quite some time before they turn any profit, even if they're getting a dollar a gallon equivalent.

Greg Peterson
11-05-2014, 9:46 PM
I'm all for a lot of leeway on topics,so, I'd say it's right in keeping with my original whine about the most recent un called for rise in gas prices.
The sooner we get out from under the thumb of the greedy oil/energy people the better.

Battery technology is the key. Cheaper, more efficient is key. Solar cell efficiency is less of a concern than storing the energy they produce. Eventually, your house will produce all the energy you need, including charging your commuting vehicle. Every residential unit will be off grid. the energy sector will have to transition to producing batteries and solar collectors and maybe even servicing residential units. Commercial facilities may exceed the ability of battery technology for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, the global economy is tied directly to the whims of oil producers.

Jason Roehl
11-06-2014, 8:02 AM
How is your house going to charge your commuting vehicle? Most people commute away from their house when the sun is up and the wind is strongest. More batteries to store that power? Major losses.

David Weaver
11-06-2014, 8:46 AM
The problem with batteries is that no matter what they are, there is a limitation on how many cycles they can withstand. That can be improved a little bit of they are kept within a range (as in something like 25 or 30% to 85% of their charge capacity).

But realistically, there are places, like where I live, that there will be many sunless days, and the batteries will be either discharged at the risk of shortening their lives or people will go without...unless they're still tied to a grid or have a backup source that uses liquid fuels.

And then there is the issue of heating and cooling homes and commercial buildings, and providing power to commercial users - especially manufacturers. That's also extremely energy intensive.

The reason we're on the grid and using inexpensive energy sources is because of just that - it's inexpensive and it's reliable. I think more is to be gained on motor fuel supply if we don't take one source of BTUs and use it or multiples of it to produce another supply of BTUs and then burn that, too. IN this case, especially, doing things like making ethanol for motor fuels (which drives the price of other things up but doesn't do anything for the OP's concerns) and burning fuel oil instead of natural gas, etc, seems suboptimal.

Still waiting for fusion, I guess. I don't have a lot of faith that batteries will ever be an economical alternative, and they present other problems with transition from 110V without doing wasteful things like using an inverter.

Kent A Bathurst
11-07-2014, 10:49 AM
Still waiting for fusion, I guess.

No sweat - only 10 years away, as it has been for the past 50 years.

David Weaver
11-07-2014, 10:54 AM
No sweat - only 10 years away, as it has been for the past 50 years.

My BIL's father worked on the princeton reactor, I guess 35 years ago now. I asked him what he thought was a ballpark estimate for fusion (and aside from indicating he really had no hard and fast answer), he liked 50 years better than 10.

There was just another story this week about a breakthrough or possible breakthrough in fusion. I guess there were a lot of those.

(I rode in the natural gas car again today, and I asked the driver if there is anything special about filling it or whether or not it's done by an attendant and he said "no, it's self serve". I asked him how long it takes to fill the car "2 minutes".)

Rod Sheridan
11-07-2014, 11:09 AM
Yes, and what is the price when taxes are removed? I've read that some places in Europe have lower gasoline prices than the USA when taxes are removed on both sides.

Hi, I live in Toronto and today gasoline is aproximately $1:18 per litre. Taking into count todays currency conversion that's $3.94 US per US gallon.

I looked up taxes for gasoline, and in 2012 in Canada the average was $0.39 per litre in taxes, which at that time was 31% of the price...............Rod.

Brian Elfert
11-07-2014, 12:33 PM
My understanding with Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) is that the tanks must be vented as the gas is constantly boiling off. Vehicles that are infrequently driven won't have any fuel left when they are driven. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) does not have this issue.

I worked at a place that converted about a dozen vehicles to CNG. They only got used two weeks a year. They did the conversion because the local natural gas supplier paid for the conversion and all the fuel in return for advertising on the vehicles. The vehicles were 25 to 45 years old at time of conversion. The oldest vehicles had been converted to single rear wheels long ago and had to be converted back to dual rear wheels to handle the weight of all the steel tanks. Even though each had four to six really large steel cylinders they only had half the range as when they used gasoline. Power was down compared to gasoline. It took 10 to 15 minutes to fuel. (The gas company supplied a mobile fueling station.) Each vehicle had to make an extra fuel stop every day which meant the vehicle was out of service for nearly 30 minutes. Sometimes fuel stops came at very bad times. (The vehicles had previously been fueled and serviced only at night )

I still like the idea of CNG in modern vehicles if there was adequate infrastructure.

David Weaver
11-07-2014, 12:59 PM
The particular vehicle I ride in is CNG. I understand the additional cost associated with the vehicle to be a conversion cost, too, but the guy driving it is employed by a gas company and they gave their employees incentives to buy CNG vehicles which basically covered the upcharge plus a little.

In about a 2 decade span centered in the 1960s or so, farm equipment was made to run on LP because most of the running happens when fuel is not in demand. That tapered off, I'd assume because it's not that convenient to keep a fuel supply and get it to the machines in the field. No clue of LP suffers from the same thing as LNG.

In terms of cost, anyway, NG is about $9 per million BTUs here. A gallon equivalent is 114,000 btus. the btu equivalent of gas at that rate is a little over a buck for the raw material (plus the cost to compress it to - the owner of the car informed me this morning - 3200 psi, I was wrong about the pump pressure. The pump pressure is 3200 and the car's max pressure is 4500). I have no idea where the heat from that compression goes, of the compressor pre-compresses and cools some? No clue.

I can imagine that the compressors might cost enormous amounts of money, but the fact that they're turning $1 of gas supply into $2 of charges to the driver suggests they could probably pay for themselves pretty easily with regular use.

Art Mann
11-07-2014, 1:37 PM
I spent a couple weeks in Argentina a few years back - in the big cities and in the countryside. In every town of some size [I dunno - 5,00 population] the gas stations also have pumps for LNG as well as gasoline. Virtually every vehicle has a conversion kit, so it can run both LNG and gasoline. We had a hired car for a few days, to take us to remote [read: winery] regions, and I had time to talk with the driver.

At the time, the conversion kit cost worked out to be in the $8,000 range, IIRC. A separate LNG tank, a fuel source switch on the dash, and dual I also recall doing the break-even numbers - worked out to be 2 years +/-...all based on mileage, of course, and the LNG:Gas price spread at the time. The LNG range is limited [250 km sticks in my mind], but you have the OEM gas system still in place - throw the switch, and keep on going.

I have no idea what the infrastructure cost was - but, these LNG fill stations were everywhere, so I would have to guess that the costs are in line where a corner gas station/convenience store can install it, sell the product, and make a return.

As far as dangerous - these vehicles are literally everywhere. Ubiquitous is the correct work. It is the standard. I did not get into safety conversations, but I'm skeptical that it is a clear and present danger.

Argentina, of course, has abundant natural gas resources, and comparative doodly-squat for petroleum.


Art, my friend - I think you are tilting at the wrong windmill.

This story has not yet played out in the USA. Argentina (and other similar countries) has to do what they have to do to survive with little wealth and few alternate natural resources. If safety must be compromised a little bit then that is what will happen. The US, on the other hand, is not going to allow ultra high pressure natural gas to be widely distributed as a fuel source without very strict (and expensive) safety regulations. Furthermore, regulations dictating that the on board pressure vessels must be able to survive a high speed head on collision are going to drive up the cost of the vehicle. $8000 won't begin to cover it. I have spent a career in the automotive engineering business and I have watched countless pilot projects using various alternative fuels come and go. The first LNG project I remember started some time around 1986. This is not a new technology. The price for a btu of natural gas has always been favorable compared to other fuels and yet all past efforts have just fizzled out. I have already enumerated the reasons why I think that happened. Maybe this time external economic factors will be different enough that it will finally be feasible on a national scale. I truly hope so -- but I kind of doubt it.

As David mentioned, the price of NG would not be so favorable if it were taxed like gasoline or diesel fuel. Will the government really give up that colossal stream of income in the long run in order to promote clean alternative energy?

David Weaver
11-07-2014, 2:16 PM
It would still be favorable and cheaper than gas or oil at this point. It would also eliminate retail distribution of fuel at a place where there was already pipe.

There is actually currently enough room in the commodity to sale price to put the gas taxes in and still have a better profit margin (even per gallon) than regular gasoline, so the comment that it wouldn't be so favorable if it were taxed like gas or diesel is not correct.

Shawn Pixley
11-07-2014, 8:25 PM
I tend to think that David is close to my viewpoint. There are quite a few fleets and buses that use LNG around here. They have an advantage relative to the general public as they have one place to fuel up. Whereas we would need all the gas stations to convert to serve LNG. I think it unlikely that most stations could afford to compress it themselves (or whether they have the room for the compressors and heat exchangers). I doubt that most communities would allow LNG mains in their streets. The main in our city's street in 5' diameter at a fairly high pressure. BHP Billiton was trying to permit a LNG terminal off our coast in which to ship LNG from Australia and feed the NG pipelines. They looked at an option of gassifying it off-shore and increasing the main to about 10' diameter and very high pressure. The other option was to ship it in liquid form under the streets. For the residents of the city, this seemed a risk too extreme for those of us in earthquake country (especially as it went through residential neighborhoods). But hey, we know gas mains never leak or burst and earthquakes never damage utilities.:rolleyes:

I am actually more interested in Hydrogen powered vehicles. A representative of BMW USA rented a house down the street from us a couple years ago. He was loaned one of the BMW Hydrogen Drive vehicles to test (7 Series). I was able to drive it and it was largely like any other BMW. The reason he had it near me rather than at the BMW Design Center or the BMW USA facility, was that we had one of the two operable H2 refueling stations. Currently there are 9 open in California with 49 more in development. I like the fact that the vehicle emissions are largely pollution free, though the cost to generate the H2 needs to be factored in. Of course the problems with LNG at your gas station are the same as for the H2 option. The savings would be that we wouldn't need to spend fuel to bring it from Australia to the US.

There are some who are exploring fuel cell technology for their house...

Art Mann
11-08-2014, 11:55 AM
Yes, there are specialty fleets that use NG. There are also fleets which use battery power. Yet, neither of these alternative fuel sources have been widely accepted in the decades since they were brought out. Not much has changed in all that time. The government has paid out billions in incentives (bribes) to get people to use batteries and that has not been accepted on a broad scale. The private market will ultimately dictate whether either of these fuels is adopted. I think battery power is close to critical mass. NG, and especially LNG, has a long way to go to overcome logistical and safety problems. I don't want to turn this into a highly technical discussion but suffice it to say the technical challenges of using NG as a fuel on a national scale are much greater than what you have heard or read.

By the way, what do you suppose adoption of natural gas as a vehicle fuel will do to the price of that commodity? Do you think it will remain as competitive with gasoline or diesel fuel as it is today?

Greg Peterson
11-09-2014, 12:42 PM
I think battery power is close to critical mass.

Battery technology is key to ruling the future of energy. There have been numerous advances, but it remains to be seen if those advances can scale up to a competitive level.

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that batteries would have to be produced over seas (China presumably) to be competitive and that mining precious natural resources is expensive and ultimately counter productive to any benefit of battery technology. While these are valid concerns, it's a little silly to think that many other experts haven't already factored these variables into the process.

Science makes the discoveries and industry finds ways to implement those discoveries into an economically viable product.

As for the government bribing or otherwise getting in the way of free enterprise, lets not forget that it was federal dollars that funded the technologies that are the foundation of the Internet. Prior to the TVA, electricity was not a ubiquitous utility. Imagine the world today without the Internet (which also scales down to the intranet at every small business and most homes). What would commerce be like without an Interstate highway system? Seeding technologies with government funds has significantly improved our standard of living. How many billions have we given away to the oil industry in the form of tax cuts? How many trillions have we spent ensuring the flow of oil continues?

I think Elon Musk has the right idea. I also think if he succeeds, wealth will be redefined by several orders of magnitude.

Pat Barry
11-09-2014, 7:52 PM
Battery technology is key to ruling the future of energy. There have been numerous advances, but it remains to be seen if those advances can scale up to a competitive level.

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that batteries would have to be produced over seas (China presumably) to be competitive and that mining precious natural resources is expensive and ultimately counter productive to any benefit of battery technology. While these are valid concerns, it's a little silly to think that many other experts haven't already factored these variables into the process.

Science makes the discoveries and industry finds ways to implement those discoveries into an economically viable product.

As for the government bribing or otherwise getting in the way of free enterprise, lets not forget that it was federal dollars that funded the technologies that are the foundation of the Internet. Prior to the TVA, electricity was not a ubiquitous utility. Imagine the world today without the Internet (which also scales down to the intranet at every small business and most homes). What would commerce be like without an Interstate highway system? Seeding technologies with government funds has significantly improved our standard of living. How many billions have we given away to the oil industry in the form of tax cuts? How many trillions have we spent ensuring the flow of oil continues?

I think Elon Musk has the right idea. I also think if he succeeds, wealth will be redefined by several orders of magnitude.
Batteries are nice but they have limits as we all see, everyday. Batteries don't last long and need to be recharged. The real answer to this problem is to use less. That is much more maneageable than hooking up gobs of batteries. Take for example the LED bulb. Introducing that technology and replacing those wasteful incandescents with LEDS is the right way to solve the problem. The saving there are huge and can not be understated. Now heat on the other hand, not electricity best use. By the way, Elon Musk is just trying to sell cars, right? He needs to make the batteries to increase his profit margin so he can reduce the price for his vehicles or they will never be more than a curiosity.

Leo Graywacz
11-09-2014, 8:19 PM
The less energy you use (more conservation) the more they are going to charge you for it. I've watched it happen time and time again. The more fuel efficient the cars become the more fuel costs. Plus the other impacts such as less taxes being generated to fix the infrastructure.

David Weaver
11-09-2014, 9:49 PM
When there is fixed overhead, at least for the near and intermediate term, it will definitely drive up the unit price.

The grid will still be there (as will the cost to maintain it).

Our water and sewer rates have risen a lot due to pressure from lower water use (showers, toilets, appliances,...all use less water than they did several decades ago).

Leo Graywacz
11-09-2014, 9:58 PM
And prices rose

David Weaver
11-09-2014, 10:29 PM
Yes, it's sort of no win. You get the efficient appliances and such because if you don't, everyone else will and they'll cause the prices to rise.

I had beautifully made 1953 casting date american standard toilets in my house. Nobody should talk about toilets being so fabulous, I guess, but they were works of art, perfectly made and effective, but water hogs. I took both of them out two years ago because my daughter was potty trained and between her and my wife (both will flush "just to make sure" there's nothing in the toilet), I cringed at a dime's worth of water and sewer every time I heard the toilets flush.

I had to change because everyone else did, much crappier new american standard toilets, poorly made, and one didn't even make it through the install before showing a casting defect and the tank busting to pieces. I live in an area where even in the most severe drought, there's no chance of any water problems, so there really never was much of a reason to conserve here. Anything we conserve just goes out the mississippi delta.

Brian Elfert
11-10-2014, 11:21 AM
The ironic thing with natural gas and electric suppliers is they generally are forced by the state to encourage lower use of electricity and natural gas. Usage goes down and then they claim they need to raise rates to keep their profits up. They are often guaranteed a rate of return which no other company is guaranteed. Why can't they make cuts like every other company has to make when revenue is down. I realize the cost of maintain the distribution network is pretty much fixed no matter what.

The house I bought had electric heat (no air conditioning) with electric bills of $5,000 for the previous 12 months. There is natural gas available now, so I put in a gas furnace with central air conditioning. Electricity for heating only makes sense with geothermal. My renovation loan wouldn't pay for geothermal because they said it doesn't add enough to the value of the house. (I suspect natural gas was not available when the neighborhood was built in the 80s as others use oil instead of gas.)

David Weaver
11-10-2014, 11:34 AM
Public interest in supply and maintenance of the distribution, I guess. The companies negotiate with the regulators about the commodity price, which I'm sure varies by state. I'd imagine if they can slip a few nickels into the commodity charge (above and beyond their cost) they will.

Still, distribution in my state is charged er mcf, so it's in their best interest to sell more gas.

The shystering lately here is in selling "line insurance" and every utility seems to be trying to sell it with "scare me" letters. I don't know what percent of premium is actually used to repair lines, but given how much they've spent to market it (and I'm sure the utility gets a cut either of every sale or every letter), I'd imagine the actual cost spent on repairs is less than half (the minimum loss ratio for health insurance is 85%).

Brian Elfert
11-10-2014, 11:46 AM
Still, distribution in my state is charged er mcf, so it's in their best interest to sell more gas.


I want to know how it costs more to distribute gas if more is used? Isn't it basically a fixed cost to run the distribution network? The utilities love cold weather because they make more money even though they supposedly sell the gas itself at their cost. They money is made on the service charge and the distribution fee.

The big thing both utilities here sell is appliance repair plans. Those are not regulated.

David Weaver
11-10-2014, 12:09 PM
In terms of this state, that's just the way it's regulated. On days when the utilities get turned around, they can get stuck with exorbitant costs for the commodity, and if they have a production side (a different line of business) that has planned well, that end of the business can do well selling excess on really cold days.

I suppose the utility felt that it was the only fair way to charge people for distribution without doing a lot of work, to bill it by the mcf. Most of the costs are fixed, I suppose, other than compressing the gas and spending the energy to move it from A to B (so there is some cost, but I don't know how much).

We also get a "customer charge" that is half of my bill in the summer months. That drives me nuts, but if they didn't get it in the "customer charge", other things would be adjusted to make up for that.

Leo Graywacz
11-10-2014, 2:19 PM
Public interest in supply and maintenance of the distribution, I guess. The companies negotiate with the regulators about the commodity price, which I'm sure varies by state. I'd imagine if they can slip a few nickels into the commodity charge (above and beyond their cost) they will.

Still, distribution in my state is charged er mcf, so it's in their best interest to sell more gas.

The shystering lately here is in selling "line insurance" and every utility seems to be trying to sell it with "scare me" letters. I don't know what percent of premium is actually used to repair lines, but given how much they've spent to market it (and I'm sure the utility gets a cut either of every sale or every letter), I'd imagine the actual cost spent on repairs is less than half (the minimum loss ratio for health insurance is 85%).

What is line insurance. Around my area they own everything up to the downlead. I think I own that but I'm not sure, they certainly own the meter. So what would this insurance cover?

Kent A Bathurst
11-10-2014, 2:55 PM
This story has not yet played out in the USA. Argentina (and other similar countries) has to do what they have to do to survive with little wealth and few alternate natural resources. If safety must be compromised a little bit then that is what will happen. The US, on the other hand, is not going to allow ultra high pressure natural gas to be widely distributed as a fuel source without very strict (and expensive) safety regulations. Furthermore, regulations dictating that the on board pressure vessels must be able to survive a high speed head on collision are going to drive up the cost of the vehicle. $8000 won't begin to cover it. I have spent a career in the automotive engineering business and I have watched countless pilot projects using various alternative fuels come and go. The first LNG project I remember started some time around 1986. This is not a new technology. The price for a btu of natural gas has always been favorable compared to other fuels and yet all past efforts have just fizzled out. I have already enumerated the reasons why I think that happened. Maybe this time external economic factors will be different enough that it will finally be feasible on a national scale. I truly hope so -- but I kind of doubt it.

As David mentioned, the price of NG would not be so favorable if it were taxed like gasoline or diesel fuel. Will the government really give up that colossal stream of income in the long run in order to promote clean alternative energy?


There is a reason this abundant and inexpensive fuel has never been accepted for use in vehicles.



Art - you have added a number of legitimate qualifiers to your original comment - the blanket "never" was the ox I was trying to gore. I understand what you are saying here - in effect, there are forces at play in the US - different safety regs, accessibility to foreign markets via other products to trade [arms and food being the 2 biggies] to partially offset trade deficits, etc., that differ from Argentina FWIW - all the conversions I saw had the tank as well situated as our gas tanks in terms of collision.

And - now I am wondering if I saw LNG, or if it was CNG - hmmmm........

Brian Elfert
11-10-2014, 3:34 PM
In terms of this state, that's just the way it's regulated. On days when the utilities get turned around, they can get stuck with exorbitant costs for the commodity, and if they have a production side (a different line of business) that has planned well, that end of the business can do well selling excess on really cold days.


Locally, the cost of the natural gas is just passed through to the customer. They don't make or lose money on the natural gas itself. There isn't much of an incentive to get the best possible price for the customer although they do find the best possible price. The gas companies typically buy futures at the lower summer prices so customers get better pricing during the heating season.

Malcolm Schweizer
11-10-2014, 5:52 PM
Saw this in the paper today. Please note that our fuel is $4.99/gal and electricity $0.58/KwH so the prices quoted for cost to recharge are actually still cheaper than gas- BUT:

$24k for that little roller skate???
I didn't know electric cars need 220/240v to charge. That makes for even more draw on a solar system.
5 hours to charge from 50%??? So plan on >8 hours charging on a normally drained battery. (Because who really will only use 50%?)
100 miles max would be grand, but they don't mention that is in ideal terrain. We have major hills.
At least it does use brake torque to help charge the battery.

Disappointing numbers. I would say go propane instead of this. I hear electric cars have short lives in the ocean air.

300031

Pat Barry
11-11-2014, 9:35 AM
The less energy you use (more conservation) the more they are going to charge you for it. I've watched it happen time and time again. The more fuel efficient the cars become the more fuel costs. Plus the other impacts such as less taxes being generated to fix the infrastructure.
This is not a correlation, its just coincidence that EVERYTHING is basically more expensive. Conservation is the correct approach. If solar was actually cost effective, the power companies would be loading up on solar. They aren't (yet). Wind power is still much more of an altenative than solar. None the less, the power companies are there to make money too. Invest in their stocks and bonds if you want to participate in their profits.

Brian Elfert
11-11-2014, 11:05 AM
This is not a correlation, its just coincidence that EVERYTHING is basically more expensive. Conservation is the correct approach. If solar was actually cost effective, the power companies would be loading up on solar. They aren't (yet). Wind power is still much more of an altenative than solar. None the less, the power companies are there to make money too. Invest in their stocks and bonds if you want to participate in their profits.

Electric utilities have very specifically said that lower electricity sales due to conservation are a major reason for their rate hike requests. They aren't making as much money because they aren't selling as much. Utility companies work the opposite way of a typical large company. Most large companies would cut costs and maybe lower prices in response to lower sales instead of raising prices.

My new house has electricity from a cooperative that charges about 10% more than the major private electric company in the state. I'm going nearly 100% LED lighting due to the higher electric costs.

Pat Barry
11-11-2014, 12:51 PM
Electric utilities have very specifically said that lower electricity sales due to conservation are a major reason for their rate hike requests. They aren't making as much money because they aren't selling as much. Utility companies work the opposite way of a typical large company. Most large companies would cut costs and maybe lower prices in response to lower sales instead of raising prices.

My new house has electricity from a cooperative that charges about 10% more than the major private electric company in the state. I'm going nearly 100% LED lighting due to the higher electric costs.
That is b s and nobody is going to buy that argument (lol). Take a look around, there are more people than ever, those people aren't really conserving all that much, there are more businesses and buildings, and strip malls, and big malls, and you name it. The need for electricity is higher than ever.

Brian Elfert
11-11-2014, 1:29 PM
That is b s and nobody is going to buy that argument (lol). Take a look around, there are more people than ever, those people aren't really conserving all that much, there are more businesses and buildings, and strip malls, and big malls, and you name it. The need for electricity is higher than ever.

There are very reputable sources that state electricity usage is, or was, down. Now, most of that is due to recession and not conservation. A lot of industries like aluminum and steel making with huge electric usage cut way back or simply shut down facilities during the recession. Companies had less business so they cut back on electricity usage.

Kent A Bathurst
11-11-2014, 1:34 PM
That is b s and nobody is going to buy that argument (lol). Take a look around, there are more people than ever, those people aren't really conserving all that much, there are more businesses and buildings, and strip malls, and big malls, and you name it. The need for electricity is higher than ever.

Well....yes and no.

It is the law of unintended consequences at play. Conservation efforts are reducing the would-have-been demand, and I would think that factors into their capacity planning.

However - One real thorny issue is green energy - solar and wind, specifically. You can power your house with those, and even sell back excess power generated - by law. The hook comes in that the utilities are still required to have capacity sufficient to meet peak demand.


So - they are sitting there with solar and wind supplanting generated demand, and even providing "negative" demand, if you will, from smaller guys. Then - boom - no wind, cloudy days - back to full demand and they must have the capacity to meet it.

Just making up numbers for an example - if green powers your house on 90% of the days, but you need to drawn down on 10% - where do the regulated utilities get the $$ to build capacity that sits idle 90% of the time?

IT's not just residential demand that is subject to this - power from green goes everywhere - when it is available.

DOUG ANGEL
11-11-2014, 3:34 PM
Don't worry folks, someone will invent a cheaper way to produce energy. Our government will strangle it with taxes and regulations, then not protect the technology so that any jobs or advantage will go overseas.

Kent A Bathurst
11-11-2014, 6:37 PM
Don't worry folks, someone will invent a cheaper way to produce energy. Our government will strangle it with taxes and regulations, then not protect the technology so that any jobs or advantage will go overseas.

Non sequitur. For example, fracking has, by and large, escaped detailed regulations inhibiting production. Plus - how exactly would one export oil/gas extraction and refining? Kinda hard to move those wells overseas, I would think.

Biggest issue I see with fracking is that production has wildly outrun ability to capture and transport/pipe the natural gas byproduct. Huge majority of it gets flared in place - no way to get it out of the oilfields to markets.

Shawn Pixley
11-11-2014, 6:40 PM
Well....yes and no.

It is the law of unintended consequences at play. Conservation efforts are reducing the would-have-been demand, and I would think that factors into their capacity planning.

However - One real thorny issue is green energy - solar and wind, specifically. You can power your house with those, and even sell back excess power generated - by law. The hook comes in that the utilities are still required to have capacity sufficient to meet peak demand.


So - they are sitting there with solar and wind supplanting generated demand, and even providing "negative" demand, if you will, from smaller guys. Then - boom - no wind, cloudy days - back to full demand and they must have the capacity to meet it.

Just making up numbers for an example - if green powers your house on 90% of the days, but you need to drawn down on 10% - where do the regulated utilities get the $$ to build capacity that sits idle 90% of the time?

IT's not just residential demand that is subject to this - power from green goes everywhere - when it is available.

For Southern California, it really doesn't work that way. Peak demand days are hot and sunny here. The very days when your solar array is generating the most power. We are also on a tiered system. Bottom rates are at or below the cost to generate and distribute. Tiers 4 & 5 over four times the cost to generate and distribute. You are economically incentivised to conserve.

The bigger problem here is not power generation but power distribution. We entered into an agreement with Oregon to be able to share excess capacity between the two grids in real time. We also have a series of peaker plants that start up only when demand is high. We as a state are trying not to keep adding to the demand. It is overall beneficial to the state to conserve. Our rates are largely indexed to natural gas prices. After the Exon debacle, California largely got our house in much better order.

DOUG ANGEL
11-11-2014, 8:00 PM
Non sequitur. For example, fracking has, by and large, escaped detailed regulations inhibiting production. Plus - how exactly would one export oil/gas extraction and refining? Kinda hard to move those wells overseas, I would think.

Biggest issue I see with fracking is that production has wildly outrun ability to capture and transport/pipe the natural gas byproduct. Huge majority of it gets flared in place - no way to get it out of the oilfields to markets.
Good point, but I was referring to a new invention, perhaps some sort of efficient fuel cell or a completely new technology. I'm personally suspicious of the long term effects of fracking. Notice that when the oil producers talk about it that they say "we pump water, and a few other chemicals into the well". What other chemicals? What are the long term effects?
America is the most imaginative nation on Earth, For example personal computers, new medicines, televisions, where are these products produced now? We are committing economic suicide with excessive regulation and taxes.

Kent A Bathurst
11-11-2014, 9:46 PM
We also have a series of peaker plants that start up only when demand is high.

Exactly - You are making my argument for me.

Pat Barry
11-12-2014, 8:22 AM
I found an interesting chart that is published by the EIA
300136
More data from EIA at this link (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm#electricity)

What is eye opening in this is the waste involved in the process. Its enormous.

Pat Barry
11-12-2014, 8:26 AM
Also, this usage data:
300137
We haven't made real progress on reducing demand just yet.

David Weaver
11-12-2014, 9:22 AM
I found an interesting chart that is published by the EIA
300136
More data from EIA at this link (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm#electricity)

What is eye opening in this is the waste involved in the process. Its enormous.

I gather from that that the BTU loss is heat from turbine planes (coal, gas, nuclear), but they have always been like that. The chart actually doesn't look too bad to me, because the real concern of things that you can handle are loss of electricity after it's generated where it gets stranded on the grid, shunted (or whatever they do to it) or just disappears and nobody gets it.

As far as 38/14 as a ratio of BTUs input to potential electrical energy afterward, that's always going to be the case. You just can't do much with a large amount of low level heat to turn it into electricity. Somewhere in my mind, I envision thermal masses absorbing that heat and being used to heat something, but the reality is that you can't move those thermal masses that easily and the way we like to locate plants (far away from everyone), there's no great way to move the heat to urban areas.

If the power plants were closer to urban areas, you literally could have transportable thermal masses, but then you have to have a way for a building to take heat off of a thermal mass and use it. As cheap as gas is, it isn't really worth the trouble, I guess. That's the whole story with all of it, it's cheap enough to get the btu inputs that it doesn't make economic sense to try to harvest the lost energy converting thermal to electricity.

Brian Elfert
11-12-2014, 9:48 AM
Also, this usage data:
300137
We haven't made real progress on reducing demand just yet.

We're still using less electricity than 2007 as of 2011. Even a 1% drop in sales is huge for utility companies with billions in sales. Power companies have cited reduced sales as reasons they need to raise rates when they apply for rate increases.

Kent A Bathurst
11-12-2014, 11:59 AM
We're still using less electricity than 2007 as of 2011. Even a 1% drop in sales is huge for utility companies with billions in sales. Power companies have cited reduced sales as reasons they need to raise rates when they apply for rate increases.

And, as a regulated utility with govco rules about how much capacity they must have available, I think they have a legitimate argument. Hard for me to say that, because I take a very dim view of the market-worthiness, if you will, of any business run with detailed govco oversite. But the mandates have to be met with a smaller sales volume. Something has to give in that equation.

On a somewhat related topic:

The big gains in vehicle mileage performance means per-gallon fuel taxes have been getting hammered, and it will accelerate in the coming years.

How do we replace that revenue stream to maintain the roads & highways? Going from 20 MPG to 40 MPG does not affect the miles driven. I can take my 5xx Beemer from Atlanta to coastal Virgina to visit a friend, and I use SC and NC highways without buying fuel there. And my car is 15 years old [gets 29 - 31 MPG at posted speed + 8 MPH].

I see this as a political hot potato in the fairly near term.

You wanna save money by getting better mileage? Well, OK, but its gonna cost you.

David Weaver
11-12-2014, 12:13 PM
Tax will come per mile. Very little road wear comes from passenger cars, though. If you have a truck loaded and it's scaling at 60,000 - 80,000 and it gets 7 miles per gallon or four 4000 pound cars that average 25, the trucks are doing several multiples of damage above and beyond their proportional weight. Around here, it's buses and trucks. The places where the buses stop, the pavement literally flows and creates ridges and bumps - at the bus stops at stop lights (where a bus literally stops at the same place over and over) there are enormous holes where the buses stop and start from that look as if someone had put their finger into a jar of peanut butter and pushed, displacing some and creating a lip at the back of the push.

Anyway, I think the tax will be part of car registration each year above and beyond the fuel tax that's already there (which will probably continue even if another tax is added).

Mark Bolton
11-12-2014, 12:29 PM
In my area electric consumption is down substantially for the reasons Brian mentioned. Large plants have shut/slowed or are idled. One of the very large power plants here was feeding 70%+ of that locations total generation to an aluminum plant that has vaporized. There is no amount of residential consumption or waste that is going to touch what that single customer bought from the power company. Multiply that by all the other industries in the country that are now operating at a fraction (if at all) of their peak demand and the total electrical needs for the country has dropped markedly.

I dont doubt in the least that we have made little to marginal gains in the residential efficiency market other than that of appliances people have not other choice but to buy. There are of course still gains to be made but we are reaching critical mass there where I just dont think the average residential customer is going to jump through hoops to save money on their electric bill.

I have been in residential construction for nearly 20 years and I dont see any more/different conservation on the part of the average home owner than I did when I started.

A local engineer for the power company here (and we are in a rural area) has told me regularly that if the state were only residential the power company would likely go belly up. Their sales and profit come from industry and the residential customers are simply lucky because thats the only reason they have power anyway. As the industry slows/goes away, the burden will fall to the residential customer.

Pat Barry
11-12-2014, 12:36 PM
I gather from that that the BTU loss is heat from turbine planes (coal, gas, nuclear), but they have always been like that. The chart actually doesn't look too bad to me, because the real concern of things that you can handle are loss of electricity after it's generated where it gets stranded on the grid, shunted (or whatever they do to it) or just disappears and nobody gets it.

As far as 38/14 as a ratio of BTUs input to potential electrical energy afterward, that's always going to be the case. You just can't do much with a large amount of low level heat to turn it into electricity. Somewhere in my mind, I envision thermal masses absorbing that heat and being used to heat something, but the reality is that you can't move those thermal masses that easily and the way we like to locate plants (far away from everyone), there's no great way to move the heat to urban areas.

If the power plants were closer to urban areas, you literally could have transportable thermal masses, but then you have to have a way for a building to take heat off of a thermal mass and use it. As cheap as gas is, it isn't really worth the trouble, I guess. That's the whole story with all of it, it's cheap enough to get the btu inputs that it doesn't make economic sense to try to harvest the lost energy converting thermal to electricity.
Yes - the biggest issue is the conversion process from heat to electricity for example. Its a shame they can't capture that heat loss and ship some of it to my house here in Minnesota. We're looking at another long cold winter.

Pat Barry
11-12-2014, 12:41 PM
We're still using less electricity than 2007 as of 2011. Even a 1% drop in sales is huge for utility companies with billions in sales. Power companies have cited reduced sales as reasons they need to raise rates when they apply for rate increases.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that we at least seem to be leveling off a little bit in total but the residential use over that same period is up 2% according to the data. With regard to prices, they are always going to increase (unless there is a significant new discovery that completely changes the equation). After all, the power companies need to buy oil and coal and have people maintain the plants, etc and those costs are still going up

David Weaver
11-12-2014, 1:02 PM
Yes - the biggest issue is the conversion process from heat to electricity for example. Its a shame they can't capture that heat loss and ship some of it to my house here in Minnesota. We're looking at another long cold winter.

That was basically my thought, how do you transport the energy. I've seen small plants where the heat is diverted to local customers, but they are very small plants and very local customers.

Shawn Pixley
11-12-2014, 1:37 PM
Exactly - You are making my argument for me.

I don't think so. Irrespective of green energy, electrical demand is not a constant. Electrical demand is low in the middle of the night. Electrical energy cannot be effectively stored currently. Hence the need for peaker plants. On could logically assume that the lowest energy demand period would be in the middle of a weekend night during a temperate time of year. Highest would be a design day during a weekday during the year. In the case of Southern California, that is hot summer wekdays. These likely represent the maximum peaks and valleys of electricity demand with some days having having flatter curves.

As population, number of households, or industry grows, without conservation or alternative (green generation) would grow but still carry the same demand curve but start from an ever increasing base.

Energy conservation can maintain or lower the base of these daily curves. Additionally, energy efficient appliances may somewhat modulate the shape of the curves (say through more efficient refrigerators). But the need to modulate energy generation would not go away. Hence peaker plants are needed irrespective of conservation and alternative generation.

Energy demand is measured real time as used. My point here is that it is not a formulaic model that says I added 50 households so my generation capacity needs to go up by X. Houses or businesses that generate their own energy do not have the same demand as to their equivelant non energy generating counterpart. As the power grid (untility generating side, not distribution) does not see this demand there is no need for increased generation. During the hot summer weekdays (peak demand for Southern California) it is also when solar energy and wind energy are typically at their most efficient. The demand from the buildings / uses with alternative generation is not there for the grid. In fact during design days of last summer my house generated much more electricity than we consumed (~12 KWh / day). My house effectively peak shed for the grid those days.

My house is a practical example. For Southern California Edison (SCE) we have our bill broken out for various components and times of year (distribution vs. generation / summer vs. winter) as well as the tiered charges. Currently, I am a net generator to the grid to the tune of 9.10 KWh / day for the months since we permitted to energize our panels. I still have the fees for being connected to the grid for the times when the panels are not generating (night).

Energy rates are subject to the California Energy Commission's approval for the three major electrical energy producers / distributors here. Because of this regulation, they are not incentivised to fight conservation nor household generation, but instead to be as efficient as possible. As electrical generation is incredibly capital intensive, efficient is measured by how well they can leverage the operating parameters of their portion of our grid. It is in their best interest to not add plants and to effectively modulate generation to the demand in real time. People and firms do what they are incentivised to do. Alternative energy production does reduce peak demand and reduces / eliminates the need for "peak production." For electricity generation in California, the two largest expense items must be natural gas prices and the depreciation of the capital assets in service.

My point here is that conservation and household / business energy production are not additive to the demand for grid peak production as you maintained. Could this be different in different locations and situations including your own? Yes, of course. But blanket statements are not very applicable in these circumstances and certainly not where I am.

Brian Elfert
11-12-2014, 2:24 PM
The lack of demand at night is why power companies give huge discounts for shifting power usage to nights. There are some industries that use huge amounts of power that operate only at night. My church put in an air conditioning system that makes ice at night and then uses the ice to help with cooling during the day. The local utility has some deal where it is way cheaper to do water heating off peak at night. No idea how that works since hot water is typically used during the day.

Leo Graywacz
11-13-2014, 4:01 PM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hope-grows-that-opec-will-cut-production-2014-11-13?link=MW_latest_news

Kent A Bathurst
11-13-2014, 4:53 PM
I don't think so.

Well, now.........your point about idle "peaker plants" was exactly the point I was making. THey have to have capacity that is siting around unused, waiting for peak demand that comes on-line only when there are extended cloudy days, or the wind dies down, or the temp hits >100 for 5 days in a row, or...., or.........., or.........

Those assets have to be built, maintained, and staffed, waiting for the bugle call, per the terms of the regulatory agency.

If it was pure free-market - and I am not suggesting that in this thread - the utilities would not build those plants. There would be a shortage of power at peak, and the supply-demand bits of Econ 101 would kick in with some pretty breathtaking rates. Whomever was willing to pay the most would get the jusice in those peak periods, and the people that were not willing to, or could not afford to, pay would go dark/sweaty/whatever.

SO the regulators require those peaker plants exist, and they allow the generators to include those costs in their rate base, and calculate rates accordingly. I might not like it, but I get it.

Randy Rizzo
11-14-2014, 1:55 PM
Here locally 87 is around $3.08. Down from mid to high $3, occasionally briefly in the low $4. And then just yesterday ( barely a week after the election) the state of Michigan announced a doubling of the gasoline sales tax. Actually more than double going from $ .19 to $ .41. Phased in incrementally. Weasels!

Greg Peterson
11-15-2014, 12:49 PM
Those assets have to be built, maintained, and staffed, waiting for the bugle call, per the terms of the regulatory agency.

If it was pure free-market - and I am not suggesting that in this thread - the utilities would not build those plants. There would be a shortage of power at peak, and the supply-demand bits of Econ 101 would kick in with some pretty breathtaking rates. Whomever was willing to pay the most would get the jusice in those peak periods, and the people that were not willing to, or could not afford to, pay would go dark/sweaty/whatever.


Endangering lives because of a profit motive is just one flaw with a pure free market. Like any system, the so called free market or free enterprise, has some gaps and doesn't cover all scenarios equally. Extreme heat is likely more of a threat to people than extreme cold. Putting a retired, fixed income person in the dark during extreme heat is simply cruel. I think this is one example of where the free market fails.

Even with all the regulations, power utilities are still a pretty safe and profitable investment.

Shawn Pixley
11-15-2014, 2:48 PM
Well, now.........your point about idle "peaker plants" was exactly the point I was making. THey have to have capacity that is siting around unused, waiting for peak demand that comes on-line only when there are extended cloudy days, or the wind dies down, or the temp hits >100 for 5 days in a row, or...., or.........., or.........

Peaker Plants have always been around as electricity use varies daily and seasonally. Solar has no effect on the need for these.


Those assets have to be built, maintained, and staffed, waiting for the bugle call, per the terms of the regulatory agency.

Unfortunately, that is an incorrect assumption. In California, the Utility Commission does not require that they have the capacity to produce all connected load including that of facilities with alternative energy generation. (A similar situation likely exists in your house. I would bet that the total connected load on your panels is far in excess of your service capacity).


If it was pure free-market - and I am not suggesting that in this thread - the utilities would not build those plants. There would be a shortage of power at peak, and the supply-demand bits of Econ 101 would kick in with some pretty breathtaking rates. Whomever was willing to pay the most would get the juice in those peak periods, and the people that were not willing to, or could not afford to, pay would go dark/sweaty/whatever.

The situation above is exactly what happened to California in the early 2000's (before significant sources of alternative energy by the way). In addition, Enron created artificial shortages by asking power plans to shut down so that Californians would have buy power from other states at exorbitant rates and pass that on to the consumer. They raped us economically. It is unfortunate that people didn't go to jail for that.

We studied this intently at my employer as we were considering a CoGen facility at the time. We (two others and I) developed a rather sophisticated Monte Carlo Analysis around this to determine under what conditions would this be wise economically. Here, electricity price is very closely connect to natural gas prices. Our variable was largely around our ability to produce product if we didn't have power from the grid. Additionally the fees to remain connected to the grid were a differentiator to various scenarios. When the electricity market stopped being manipulated by Enron, much of the challenge disappeared. We didn't build the CoGen plant.

California got much more sophisticated in our regulation as a result. The methods and approaches to these changes are largely un-germane to this issue. Many of our public buildings have solar panels on them. The use of alternative energy is an economic benefit to the taxpayor and the general population (lower demand to the grid obviating the need for additional grid generation, lower taxes due to the reduced need to buy electricity for government buildings, cleaner air, etc...


SO the regulators require those peaker plants exist, and they allow the generators to include those costs in their rate base, and calculate rates accordingly. I might not like it, but I get it.

Again, an incorrect assumption. Peaker plants exist because electrical demand varies, not because of alternative energy generation. They are desirable to avoid excess generation of electricity that must be shunted off.

DOUG ANGEL
11-16-2014, 10:55 PM
Fuel costs in the US are a small component of most consumption budgets.

I believe the reason most of us beef about gas prices, is that we're burning
it to travel to jobs we don't much care for - so we can afford gas.

There's a real disconnection between most of us, and the things we consume.
The handling chain, from extaction to refining happens somewhere out of sight.

It's not as if the stuff comes out of the ground, ready to fill up your "Canyonero".

This complaint isn't new, and is easily explained by the amount of time consumed in each step.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130225-us-gas-price-spike-refineries/

Try driving 36 miles to work and another 36 home at $3.85 a gallon. Even if you get 26-30 MPG, it takes a big bite out of any budget......love your job or not! Like I told a co-worker that was complaining about gas prices "we're going to pay it, because there is no alternative".

Leo Graywacz
11-16-2014, 11:30 PM
That's why my shop is 2 miles from my house.

Marvin Hasenak
11-27-2014, 10:36 PM
America has 5% of the worlds population, but we consume 20% of the worlds energy. It boils downs to the fact we waste more energy per capita than any other industrialized country.

Brian Elfert
11-27-2014, 11:12 PM
We probably waste more energy as a country because we use more energy. Waste is different based on who you ask. Some might say that heating and cooling huge enclosed shopping malls is a waste, but others would disagree.

We could probably do more to reduce fossil fuel use by reducing waste than by switching to solar and wind. My office building is pretty wasteful because it is heated and cooled essentially the same 24x7, but 75% of the building is empty after 6 pm. The office tower we are moving to shuts off the ventilation at night to save energy. (This causes us issues because certain departments are staffed until midnight or 1 am.)

Jason Roehl
11-28-2014, 7:58 AM
America has 5% of the worlds population, but we consume 20% of the worlds energy. It boils downs to the fact we waste more energy per capita than any other industrialized country.

What percentage of the world's food supply do we produce? I'm not saying we don't waste energy, but there are many areas where energy usage is essentially zero, because the production of goods and services is also near zero in those areas.

Cody Colston
11-30-2014, 5:18 AM
Like I told a co-worker that was complaining about gas prices "we're going to pay it, because there is no alternative".

There is no viable alternative and there will be no viable alternative in the foreseeable future because petroleum is the cheapest, most plentiful source of energy. Gasoline prices could double over the last two-year average and that would still be the case.

Alternative, ie "green", energy comprises less than 1% of the energy demands in the U.S. All those ugly windmills marring the landscape and killing birds aren't generating enough energy to matter when compared to total demand.

If "peak oil" ever becomes a reality and global production begins an unstoppable decline, an alternative energy source will be developed. Until then, it simply won't happen and I don't see peak oil being a reality any time soon.

BTW, gasoline was $2.44 a gallon yesterday where I live in Texas. There is a global glut of oil and drilling activity has slumped significantly. I can see $2.00/gallon gasoline, or even lower, before demand starts exceeding supply and prices rise. Low prices mean less exploration dollars are spent which will eventually result in lower production which results in rising prices which results in increased exploration. It's a cycle that has been in place for decades.

Greg Peterson
11-30-2014, 11:15 AM
Oil prices are approaching a tipping point. If the price goes much lower, tar sands oil and fracking will cease to remain profitable. As it is, the margins on those commodities has been steadily declining and it isn't as if they are the least expensive resources to extract.

I'd guess pump prices are about as low as they are going to go. OPEC seems determined to make tar sands and fracking painfully expensive or at least diminish the economic viability.

David Weaver
11-30-2014, 11:40 AM
I'd guess pump prices are about as low as they are going to go. OPEC seems determined to make tar sands and fracking painfully expensive or at least diminish the economic viability.

They do, but it's sort of a pointless endeavor on their part. They can put them idle temporarily in an attempt to get prices back up, but they will just resume as soon as prices are up.

Greg Peterson
11-30-2014, 11:47 AM
They do, but it's sort of a pointless endeavor on their part. They can put them idle temporarily in an attempt to get prices back up, but they will just resume as soon as prices are up.

Most likely this is the case. Which means that we are near the lower end of the of the energy cost spectrum. The pendulum will soon start swinging the other way.

Sean Troy
11-30-2014, 1:51 PM
Imagine all the landfills filled with batteries.... What about the oil needed to manufacture the plastic cases for the batteries?

David Weaver
11-30-2014, 3:12 PM
I think dumping lithium and nimh batteries that don't have a lot of cobalt or nickel in them is fairly harmless. I don't know what's in cars, but if there is cobalt or nickel in them, it won't be allowable to dump them in landfills (and nickel and cobalt have value, whereas lithium doesn't make up a very large % cost of the actual batteries - and is a lot cheaper to get raw). Batteries are a minority user of lithium, anyway. i don't know where the rest of the lithium used industrially ends up.

Scott Shepherd
11-30-2014, 3:49 PM
I think dumping lithium and nimh batteries that don't have a lot of cobalt or nickel in them is fairly harmless. I don't know what's in cars, but if there is cobalt or nickel in them, it won't be allowable to dump them in landfills (and nickel and cobalt have value, whereas lithium doesn't make up a very large % cost of the actual batteries - and is a lot cheaper to get raw). Batteries are a minority user of lithium, anyway. i don't know where the rest of the lithium used industrially ends up.

My beef with one side of it is that we need to do this to save the planet, as we're destroying the environment buy drilling all over the planet. Then the alternative is battery and solar technology that all has minerals in them that have to be stripped mined all over the planet. So it's okay to pillage the rest of the world's ground, ground where 95% of the time, there's no "EPA" like department to make sure those strip mining aren't dumping toxic chemicals or by products directly into the rivers and water sources for millions of other people.

That all seems to be okay, but talk about building something with the latest technology, the EPA watching over it, and all the government regulations, in the USA, and it's "NO WAY", we can't do that here.

It's apparently okay to rip up the earth in other countries, poison their water, and air, so we can get in our "special clean car" and drive to and from Starbucks telling everyone how environmentally conscience we are.

Jim Koepke
11-30-2014, 4:08 PM
That all seems to be okay, but talk about building something with the latest technology, the EPA watching over it, and all the government regulations, in the USA, and it's "NO WAY", we can't do that here.

Once read, "A company that will go to the ends of the Earth for its people will find it can hire them for about 10% of the cost of Americans."

On the other side of this with all the regulations somehow people have found a way to build and develop in the USA.

Apple is building a new campus in Cupertino, California. All the time there are complaints about how anti-business California happens to be. Much of that is just rhetoric used as a justification by those who move their money and manufacturing overseas to avoid paying wages and taxes. Workers in Malaysia likely do not have health or retirement benefits.

Thank God we do not treat workers like they are treated in some other countries.

jtk

Pat Barry
11-30-2014, 4:30 PM
We bought gas for $2.45 today at a little town on a US Hwy (not an interstate). All three stations in this little town had the same price. 15 miles away the price was $2.67. Why the difference?

Brian Elfert
11-30-2014, 7:48 PM
There is some speculation that OPEC is allowing prices to slide to reduce oil exploration in North America. The oil in North Dakota is very expensive to get out out of the ground, especially with so many wells going in.

David Weaver
11-30-2014, 9:09 PM
Apple is building a new campus in Cupertino, California. All the time there are complaints about how anti-business California happens to be. Much of that is just rhetoric used as a justification by those who move their money and manufacturing overseas to avoid paying wages and taxes. Workers in Malaysia likely do not have health or retirement benefits.

jtk

That's a gigantic oversimplification and one that's false for anyone in a commodity market where an item has some value and can be easily shipped.

Like apple products...which are made mostly in malaysia, korea, china and taiwan.

It's one thing to build things here, but a much smaller thing to build a headquarters here and manufacture everything (or nearly everything) somewhere else.

Leo Graywacz
12-02-2014, 11:12 PM
Looks like we could go into oil wars. Just like the price wars when there were 4 gas stations at an intersection. They'd keep lowering prices to keep the people coming to their station.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11268611/OPEC-Saudi-Prince-says-Riyadh-wont-cut-oil-unless-others-follow.html

Kent A Bathurst
12-03-2014, 12:12 PM
We bought gas for $2.45 today at a little town on a US Hwy (not an interstate). All three stations in this little town had the same price. 15 miles away the price was $2.67. Why the difference?

Where is the outlier located? On the interstate? Location has a lot to do with it. As does competition - 3 stations in close proximity can see the other guys' prices.

Here in Atlanta [Atlanta-Atlanta, not Sandy Springs-Atlanta]............

On Peachtree, there are very few gas stations. Why? That property's value is determined by alternative uses, not just gas and Mountain Dew. If you can't make the right ROI, bulldoze it and rebuild.

There are 2 stations within a 1-mile stretch from me heading south; no others for the next 5 miles+. Heading north, there are no gas stations for at least 5 miles. The price is $X per gallon.

Leave Peachtree, drive 3 miles east from me, and you will find - as an example - one big intersection with gas stations on 3 of 4 corners. Prices at those 3 are generally identical @ $X minus 20 cents or so.

Between me and those three is another major road [Piedmont], whose prices are midway between those 2 levels

The P'tree property values are driven by nice restaurants, very nice apartments/condos, shops, etc. Anyone driving P'tree that needs gas is unlikely to drive to the 3 others - they might not know the territory, they might not have the time, they might not want to fool with the traffic.............. But - those 3 are very busy, nonetheless.

Proximity of competition and location, location, location.

Brian Elfert
12-03-2014, 12:28 PM
Just about every time gas prices go down people go out and buy less fuel efficient vehicles and then regret it when gas prices go back up. I don't understand why people don't remember that gas prices were high within the last six months and will most likely go back up during the lifespan of the vehicle.

Since 2008 I have seen a great many gas stations go out of business. In most cases it wasn't a matter of the land being more valuable for other uses as most of the stations sat vacant for years and some are still vacant. A gas station near my house just closed and I think it will take years to ever sell it because there is plenty of vacant commercial land surrounding it. I have seen a few stations actually reopen after sitting closed for some time.

Kent A Bathurst
12-03-2014, 2:54 PM
Brian - that is all true, in general.

But - in this strip of Peachtree Road, there are big-mopney condos going up next to a HUGE $$ condo operation [$1mm +] and very successful business and small-ish shopping areas and............

IF the land under those 2 gas stations became available, they would be snapped up virtually overnite.


It's all about location. The physical home we live in roughly approximates the place we had in a Michigan town of 5,000 residents. The fractional acre of dirt alone - forget the structure - is valued at 3x what our house with 3/4 acre sold for in Michigan. :eek:

The realtor told me - paraphrasing - "Welcome to the Big City, son. You want to live "in town", in this neighborhood, you will have to ante up."

Malcolm Schweizer
12-03-2014, 5:25 PM
Just an update: Still paying $4.99/gal for premium. Enjoy the low prices for me please!

Robert Payne
12-03-2014, 6:15 PM
I paid $2.149 at Costco in Spartanburg, SC on Sunday. Lowest I've seen in years.

Pat Barry
12-03-2014, 6:54 PM
Where is the outlier located? On the interstate? Location has a lot to do with it. As does competition - 3 stations in close proximity can see the other guys' prices..
The other station was in the next town. All of them located on the same US Hwy (not interstate). Just happened to be the next town. All the stations in that next town had very simlilar, higher prices.