Gas Prices -- Help at last?

Jose wrote:
Europe [...] has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what
we are
currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If
your statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many
alternate energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over
$6.00 per gallon.


They conserve, by dint of not being huge. America has huge open spaces
to traverse. We live further from work than Europeans. The distance
from Iowa to New York is greater than the total size of entire
=countries= in Europe.

They don't need cheap fuel as much as America does.

And _gasoline_ in Europe is cheaper than in the USA. The trouble is it
is sold bundled with lots of _taxes_.

Jay Honeck wrote:
Nice folks -- but we tend to avoid discussing politics with them...

this is a good idea if you want to keep your guests.


Actually, it's a good idea in Iowa City, period. There hasn't been a
Republican elected to office here since before I was born -- and I'm 47
years old!

:-)

Wow, you are much more backwards then I even imagined!

Matt

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:38:26 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

If they are all so costly, then why havent they built new capacity?

Because we won't let them!

That's true, but that quote isn't mine.

Mind your P's and snips :~)


The one in Arizona is going on ten years now, and the environmental
lobby is looking to stretch out approval for a few more months, until
the clock runs out on the existing environmental impact statement.
Then the company can start all over again.

Can't let people take priority over those rats and snails ...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:g7i2f.468745$xm3.183303@attbi_s21...
Another unfortunate conclusion is it's going to take fuel prices in
that range to make alternative energy sources widely competitive.

You make many good points, Roger, except this one. I keep reading (and
hearing) this statement over and over, from TV, radio and newspaper
commentators -- and everyone just blithely accepts it as "Truth" with a
capital "T".

Unfortunately, Europe -- supposedly home to some of the best minds in the
world -- has been subjected to gas prices two and three times what we are
currently paying, thanks to a generation of outrageous taxation. If your
statement were true, by now Europe should have developed many alternate
energy sources, rather than suffer gasoline priced at over $6.00 per
gallon.

Where are they? What are they?

The frightening answer is: There aren't any -- even at $6.00 per gallon.
The only other alternative is that Europe simply doesn't possess the
scientific and industrial wherewithal to develop them -- which seems
highly unlikely.
--


In Europe they are about twice as efficient using petroleum for
transportation as in the US. Instead of developing alternative fuels, they
have become more efficient at using existing fuels. In contrast, Brazil has
replaced about half of gasoline with ethanol (made from sugar cane), so it
can be done, it just doesn't make sense everywhere. You need a lot of land
and the right climate to produce enough bio fuels to run a modern economy.

When you say:

"I keep reading (and
hearing) this statement over and over, from TV, radio and newspaper
commentators -- and everyone just blithely accepts it as "Truth" with a
capital "T"."

I am reminded of you connecting the number of refineries with the capacity
to produce gasoline when there is no direct connection. You accepted this
as the "Truth" simply because you wanted to. Even when I pointed out that
gasoline production has risen by about a third in the past 20yrs (while the
number of refineries has shrunk) you continue to rant about the
"enviro-nazis" and how they have "prevented" new refineries, when the fact
is that there have been no new refineries because it is more economic to
expand production at existing refineries. Why would anyone want to build a
new refinery when you can more cheaply expand an existing one that already
has an adjacent deep-water port, pipelines to major markets ect?

Higher prices definately allow alternatives to become viable. In the past
year or two, petroleum extraction from tar sands has become economically
feasible for instance. It is now economic to drill for oil off the West
coast of Africa even thought the region is politically unstable, the
potential has overcome the risks.

All this isn't going to make the price come down to where it was three years
ago, that just isn't going to happen. Destroying or poisening the
enviornment isn't going to get the price of gasoline down that muich either.
Pay attention now, for here is the Truth, the fundemental reason why energy
is more expensive and why it will stay that way:

HERE IT IS:

****Until recently, only about 25% of the worlds population used any
meaningful amount of energy, now about 60% does.****

Read it again because that is it in a nutshell and none of the other BS
matters. Anybody who didn't see this coming and make a lot of money from it
is an idiot.

Mike
MU-2

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

but the areas where I've been I never saw business-like dressed
people waiting or boarding a bus.

because it would be a colossal waste of their time?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule


But being stopped in rush hour traffic alone in their car isn't? Many commutes in So Cal are 45 minutes or more. Riding
the train or bus allows active work to be done...

Jay Honeck wrote:

It's doubtful, at best, however, given the fact that 100LL is about to be
regulated out of existence in America.

Got evidence of that? The EPA's position is and has been that leaded aviation
fuel doesn't constitute enough of a hazard for them to target it, and the fuel
experts at the Oshkosh symposiums said that legislation isn't a problem. They
said that what will kill 100LL is the fact that the market is declining and the
manufacturer of lead-tetraethyl will almost certainly find it unprofitable to
make it within the next 8 years.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

..Blueskies. wrote:

It is the run it at 100% capacity rule.

I don't know of any companies who follow this rule. Most try to run between 85%
and 90% to give them time to expand with demand.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
home is four miles from my office,

Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle commute.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:u802f.226888$084.41833@attbi_s22...
If you want to go back the old black skies Pittsburg steel mill balls to
the wall screw the environment way of doing business, then you might as
well go to China. I personally want the USA to stay nice for my kids.

Somewhere down the road, when you're complaining that the only jobs for
American kids anymore is flipping burgers at Mickey D's, remember this
discussion.

And remember the old 80/20 dilemma: that 20% of regulation clears 80% of the
air...but more like 95%.

After 20%, the rest is bureaucratic/environmental self-service.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:T092f.412183$x96.405147@attbi_s72...

Yup, it sure could. But whatever happens, it will be a minor shadow of
what could have occurred with long-term environmental destruction.

I don't believe anyone here has argued in favor of unfettered industrial
waste. For example, I'm as glad as anyone that my beloved Great Lakes are
cleaner than they've been since the days of Marquette & Joliet.

He's arguing from a "false alternative" premise: either overarching
regulation or an environmental disaster. It's hysterical hyperbole.