If it makes you feel any better in the US, the UK price is over $10 ( ?6.30 ). Soon only Bankers will be able to drive!
hwertz, you are right about buying a new car that get better gas mileage.
There are numerous vehicles that get 40mpg. Ford Fiesta,Chevy Cruze Eco,Hyundai Elantra,Accent ,Velostar,Honda Civic,Kia RIO, Mazda 3
The price of purchase, plus taxes, and interest on the loan would pay for gas on your current car for many years to come.
First time vehicle purchasers or someone who is tired of their current vehicle will be the buyers.
Try, everyone that needs an operation where open surgery is involved. Drug companies think profit first and most of the research and advanced technology that leads to long term health benefits, is govt.funded. You are incorrect in your assumption that only the wealthy benefit from specialized drugs. Generally, in single payer, when health benefits would result in lower cost, the govt. “encourages” their implementation. FDA approves drugs on the initiative of others, not itself.
Again, if public transportation were more available, you lived on an island and only drove 3 to 5 k miles a year, you might not mind paying $10 per gallon. Especially if you didn’t have to make health insurance payments to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month as well. I don’t feel bad for their high gas prices for one moment.
Religious zealots are a threat to any society, regardless of their brand of religion or methods of achieving their goals. Many of the founding fathers of the USA were atheists, and wisely recognized the absolute need to keep religion out of government and vice versa. Funny to me how Christian Fundamentalists feel they could better the country, but can’t comprehend the Muslims (Jews, Islamics, pick a religion) feel the same way.
I commute at least 500 miles per week, so last year I sold my 25 mpg car and bought a used VW TDI that gets 43+ mpg. I snapped it up the day it went in the classifieds, and the guy I bought it from said he could have sold a dozen if he’d had them. It’s paid for itself in one year of driving. What’s interesting is that these cars (at least the TDI) routinely sell for more than high blue book value. Many people would balk at paying so much for a used, no warranty car, but to me the math was right. Helps that I’m my own mechanic, because if I had paid for the timing belt and struts to be replaced last month, the math would not be so good, though it still would be cheaper overall. But what I’m getting at, is that like you, many of us can’t justify paying $20k+ for a new fuel efficient car, so it is driving up the price of used ones.
Like the housing market, the oil futures market is getting overheated and could lead to a big loss for those willing to play in this high stakes gamble.<<<
Except it is nothing like the housing market! The demand for oil is increasing daily, and China is barely getting started on what their eventual demand will be. Housing is finite, at least in this country. It is not running out, and it is not a shared demand with any other country. The housing bubble was driven by banking fraud, not demand. It ‘overheated’ when all the people with sh*t credit who were allowed to buy houses realized they couldn’t afford one and walked away from a ridiculous mortgage.
Oil is called black gold for a reason, since it is a globally accepted ‘currency’ that all developed countries recognize and trade. I would also argue that it is not so much about supply and demand at some future time, as it is about manipulation of PERCEIVED supply and demand.
As to ethanol, it has to be subsidized by the government because it takes more energy to produce than it delivers. Ironically, demand for it also drives up the price of oil, since petroleum is used both to fuel farm equipment and produce the fertilizer for the corn. And the demand also drives up the price of corn, which is a major food source, and puts a strain on agricultural land which is diverted from other food crops to grow corn for ethanol instead. A vicious cycle in many ways.
Ethanol that is being forced on us by the farmers, politicians and ethanol producers. It is going to raise food and gas prices. Corn stocks are at a 15 year low. Ethanol eats fuel pumps and kills lawn equipment. Its use raises feed prices and food prices. Plus it takes more oil to produce and refine then it makes. Not to mention, that it takes up productive farm land. Ethanol is only a good alternative when it is a non-food crop grown on marginal land.
Many of the founding fathers of the USA were atheists,
I am sure you have a basis for that statement. Can you give us a number, and names?
When atheists and liberals try to usurp power, that is good. when conservatives and religious groups, try to usurp power that is bad. How am I doing?
Um, you mean the collective bargaining rights for people who make double what those ordered to pay them at gunpoint make? People who get to vote on the officials they are collectively bargaining against? People who expect others to pay their pensions and health care for life? FDR himself said it made no sense to have a union for government employees. I was a union member for 31 years, and if we didn’t produce, we didn’t get paid, period. No one was held at gunpoint and forced to pay taxes so we could get twice what our neighbors earned.
But. I must admit I have been confused. Whenever I heard the proposed law, it said no right to bargain for raises above the cost of living increases. Yet, you guys keep talking about total elimination of all bargaining rights. One of those two is right.
Personally, I think they should be allowed to demand anything and everything they want. Then, when their state is bankrupt and all pay and all pensions are gone, we can laugh at the starving dummies.
Now there's a bunch of outdated bad information!
New ethanol plants are much more efficient that the plants of 10 years ago.
Corn stocks are low because of a huge whet production failure last year in Europe and Asia, thus more exports. This year's crop is going to be record-setting.
The corn used in ethanol production is not edible by humans, and the byproduct is used in animal feed-- something never considered by the anti-ethanol lobby in comparing efficiency.
Your statement “Plus it takes more oil to produce and refine then [sic] it makes” is nonsensical, as oil is not made from ethanol. I assume what you really mean is that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the amount of energy you will get from the ehtano. Completely untrue given modern technology.
Good post Al. Nevertheless, the conversion rate in terms of energy used to make ethanol, it’s now about 60% of the energy produced, still pretty awful. Ethanol from sugar cane, as grown in Brazil, is a very efficient process. The stalks are even used to generate steam to power the process, and the pressings left over are animal feed.
The corn used, although feed corn for cattle, still takes up valuable land that in the near future will be needed for food production. Obama supports funding the production of ethanol from algea and other sources not requiring farmland. If you take a trip through South East Asia you will be made aware of the importance of farmland in feeding the world. As these Asian countries get richer, they will want to buy all the food the US can grow. That will be a much better use of farmland than growing corn to run cars.
Ethanol no longer kills fuel pumps, except in older cars and older lawn equipment.
It seems ridiculous to me that evangelical Christians insist the founding fathers were all devout Christians, and atheists insist they were all atheists. Someone must be getting it wrong. In fact, they were a diverse group.
Having only done cursory research on the issue, I don’t think any of America’s founding fathers were atheists. They were all, however, secularists, strongly agreeing in the separation of Church and State.
irlandes, I simply wish we could all tolerate each other and find compromise.
"Completely untrue given modern technology."
If THAT was a factual statement then there would be no need for subsidies and companies would be lining up to enter the market.
The fact is that it’s not factual and it does take more energy to produce ethanol than is yielded.
Um, you mean the collective bargaining rights for people who make double what those ordered to pay them at gunpoint make?
Um, no, irlandes. I am referring to the collective bargaining rights of public sector employees who, in my state, make less than their private sector counterparts, at least when looking at clerical workers.
Private sector unionized employees do make more than their private sector non-unionized counterparts, but those are not the folks whose collective bargaining rights are under attack by tea partiers. The folks under attack right now are teachers, firefighters, police officers, and those who support them, who are all already underpaid.
Conservatives love to paint unionized workers as greedy and corrupt, and I am sure some are, but for the most part, most of us just want a fair wage, overtime pay for working more than 40 hours per week, and scheduled breaks.
“The price of gasoline isn’t changing…It’s the value of your dollar that is changing…”
Funny how this pithy comment has been totally ignored. But then I believe many of the commenters here in another forum praised the Federal Reserve as an example of a sort of ideal quasi-governmental agency.
And the devaluation of the currency thanks to our huge deficits and continued “quantitative easing” will continue to exacerbate the fact of “higher gas prices”. People love to blame corporatism but are loathe to criticize governmental causes. Sadly, many call for more government as a solution.
Nope!
If your assumptions were true, then we wouldn’t be subsidising oil, and companies would be “lining up” to drill for oil. Of course we do subsidize oil, and I’ve neve seen a line of companies waiting for a shot at oil exploration.
bruzer, you should talk to a knowledgeable person such as a biochemistry univerity professor to get the actual conversion efficiency figures. Then you will find that the yield, although poor, is positive. Energy efficiency and cost efficiency are two entirely different things.
Corn ethanol is not cost-effective, and needs a subsidy to match the cost gasoline. The plants are small and transportation by truck (ethanol corrodes stell pipelines) is expensive. Ethanol from sugar cane is cost-effective and banned from the US or subject to a high import tariff. Brazilian sugar cane growers DO NOT VOTE IN US ELECTIONS!
The presidential primaries in Iowa really put that state onthe map and assured lots of corn subsidies.
I do agree with some posters that the oil industry does not need more subsidies and tax breaks. Rising oil prioces make most sources of oil in North America cost-effective.
Many subsidies are politically driven, as you might suspect. Subsidies for solar and wind power are needed if the US has any chance of reducing its greehouse gas emissions. But that’s another story.
My point is that, unless the fundamental laws of nature have been suddenly altered, it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol, or gasoline, than is yielded by that gallon.