[villalobos]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Other technologies will be adopted when it is financially advantageous to do so.

However, my 11 year old car still runs fantastically well, and is paid for. You're going to have to work very hard to make it financially advantageous for me to junk it and buy something new for 30k.

Raising the cost of gas over the next 5-6 years will be painful, but not so much as to cause me to spend 20-30k on a new vehicle that will have its own fuel costs. The amount spent on gas over the next 5-6 years even with your ridiculous price (not cost) raises does not justify buying a new vehicle when the paid-for one works perfectly well.

That's just at an individual level. Now start thinking of small and large businesses with fleets. These tend to turn over passenger cars at 200k, which means every six or seven years, and large transport trucks at 2 million miles or so. Although the trucks aren't often sold, they're more often rebuilt.

The cost of cycling through a whole fleet also doesn't make sense, especially for the large trucking fleets.

Now think about police departments. They also turn over vehicles every six or seven years, mostly through auctions. They do not adopt new technology that is unproven. They resisted front-wheel-drive for a long time, despite the tests that are run in Michigan every year, which every PD reviews the results from.

Lastly, your attempts to manipulate the buying public are punitive and likely to fail. You contend that the price doesn't reflect the cost. When you're king of the oil companies, then you can adjust that. Until then, trying to change what you aren't in charge of through punitive taxation is part of what this country was founded to protest against.

But the price does NOT reflect the cost, be it human or environmental. The growth in the USA has been built on a fallacy, that is that energy is cheap, and plentiful. Well it's neither. Countries in Europe after the first oil crisis realized that, and changed their energetic policy. They tried (and somewhat succeeded) to reduce the overall energetic consumption. I am fairly sure that every European kid growing in the 80's will tell you that there were constant public campaign about not wasting energy. On the other hand, the US had a brief stint with conservation (like 55 PH on the freeways), but then went back to its old habit or over consumption, using a strong dollar, a relatively good image abroad, and the growth of the public debt.

Raising taxes on gas could help with switching to solar heating at minimal cost (or even better geothermal which right now is barely subsidized).

This country was founded to protest against excessive taxation. What do you think the effect of the oil price is in the US right now? The exact same thing, given the dependence on oil. As you mentioned it affects EVERYTHING. It's time for a government here to grow some and take unpopular short term measures in order to insure the long term viability of the country.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by tie 

Regarding the gas tax: If gas supplies really are the limiting factor (i.e., if we really believe the story from the car-huggers that we need to drill in ANWR, build more refineries, etc.), then the supply curve is inelastic...

Marketplace: Bush speaks, we read between the lines

Heard this story which claims that 1) gas supplies are higher (in the US) than they have been for years 2) we are using less gas than before 3) while new refineries haven't been built, current ones have been improved and are boosting production capabilities and 4) refineries are actually cutting back on production because of 1, 2 and 3.

They claim that the price increase is due to sinking US dollar and market speculation.

[chris v]

The fact that the Peso has kept up with the Dollar for the last 2 years should say something about the state of our currency. A speculation bubble would be nice, but there's a chance that the speculators are right.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

You are arguing that they are leaving billions of dollars in profits on the table (out of the goodness of their hearts?) and this is ridiculous.

I'm not arguing any such thing- in fact, exactly the opposite.

Your argument, and others who seem to think the price of gas is based solely on the same market forces as any other product, means there'd be no such thing as any 'Windfall profit' for the government to tax in the first place! (Now, keep in mind I myself don't subscibe to any belief that the oil companies are really gouging the prices so far beyond the actual costs of refining and everything else that goes into delivering a gallon of gas to the consumer that there's really any obscene profit margin beyond all fairness - but Hillary, et al, certainly believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't even be ranting about taxing 'windfall' profits.

One thing is for certain, whether you believe gas prices are an accurate reflection of the true cost to the oil companies, or part of a gouge to produce an undeserved profit- the oil companies won't pay any 'windfall profit tax' any more than they pay any other government imposed tax. YOU, the consumer will, AS ALWAYS. They aren't in the business of paying gas taxes, they're in the business of making enough money to have political busibodies screaming at them about 'windfall' profits.

[CreepDogg]

Why wouldn't the price of gas be subject to market forces like any other product? Every market has its unique characteristics, and this is no exception - it's largely an oligopoly with an inelastic demand curve, so one can't assume there would not be profits for the sellers.

I agree 'windfall profits' is more provocative than accurate. Oil company profit margins were around 8-10% recently - hardly 'gouging' by business standards. It's also fair to point out that in sheer amount, profits have been high, so it's not surprising that the government sees a source of revenue...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The inability to build new refineries (none built in over 20 years) and explore domestically due to environmental lobby money does not help.

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Which is the bigger number? $11,534,676 or $665,607

It's not the amount of money, but what one does with it. Here is a good example.

Groups sue to stop seismic oil exploration in Arctic seas: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
anytime there is a move to improve our domestic oil and refinery capabilities, lawsuit.

[tie]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm not arguing any such thing- in fact, exactly the opposite.

Actually, yes you are. Your argument as you have phrased it requires that the gas companies not be trying to maximize profits. This seems ludicrous to me. Perhaps it is hyperbole to say that a company that gives up billions of dollars in potential profit is a "charity." But you have yet to give any credible explanation why oil companies would be willing to give up such billions. Good luck.

Your argument, and others who seem to think the price of gas is based solely on the same market forces as any other product, means there'd be no such thing as any 'Windfall profit' for the government to tax in the first place! (Now, keep in mind I myself don't subscibe to any belief that the oil companies are really gouging the prices so far beyond the actual costs of refining and everything else that goes into delivering a gallon of gas to the consumer that there's really any obscene profit margin beyond all fairness

I really don't understand what you are saying. First you say that I "think the price of gas is based solely on the same market forces as any other product," which is basically true. Then you say that you agree. All right, that's great, but this doesn't rebut me in any way, though.

One thing is for certain, whether you believe gas prices are an accurate reflection of the true cost to the oil companies, or part of a gouge to produce an undeserved profit- the oil companies won't pay any 'windfall profit tax' any more than they pay any other government imposed tax. YOU, the consumer will, AS ALWAYS. They aren't in the business of paying gas taxes, they're in the business of making enough money to have political busibodies screaming at them about 'windfall' profits.

Crash, what does this mean: "whether you believe gas prices are an accurate reflection of the true cost to the oil companies, or part of a gouge to produce an undeserved profit..." Again, I suggest you read my argument or any economics textbook (which will say the same thing) and try to counter it. Setting up false dichotomies isn't going to help you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

Actually, yes you are. Your argument as you have phrased it requires that the gas companies not be trying to maximize profits. This seems ludicrous to me. Perhaps it is hyperbole to say that a company that gives up billions of dollars in potential profit is a "charity." But you have yet to give any credible explanation why oil companies would be willing to give up such billions. Good luck.

competition?

[tie]

Competition causes them to increase their prices and earn less money? I've never heard of companies competing to increase prices.

Really, if you want to rebut my argument, you'd need to talk about long-term costs. (If a company doesn't know what its taxes are going to be, there is increased regulatory risk.) I don't think there is any short-term argument to be made that oil companies will give up billions of dollars in profit. (If you want to try to make such an argument, though, start talking about oligopolies and corrupt politicians, and wave your hands around. You'll still be wrong but at least you'll confuse the issue. )

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

anytime there is a move to ransack the last wild places in the US, mine the kinds of places the Sierra Club puts on its calendars, and destroy protected wildlife refuges, lawsuit.

Fixed that for you. As for improving energy security, it's simple. Stop try to prop up carbon corporations.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

anytime there is a move to harm Gaia, lawsuit.

fixed agin


Which leaves at the mercy of Comrade Chavez and his OPEC buddies. The area in AWNR was set aside specifically for oil exploration when it was setup.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Which leaves at the mercy of Comrade Chavez and his OPEC buddies.

I'll type it in caps, in the hope you read it this time. THE SOLUTION IS TO STOP PROPPING UP THE CARBON ECONOMY.

[Chongo]

Until we have a viable replacement (solar /wind/nuclear/hydrogen) in service we are stuck with a carbon economy until then, unless you want to go medieval, and all the sanitation problems that accompany it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Until we have a viable replacement (solar /wind/nuclear/hydrogen) in service we are stuck with a carbon economy until then, unless you want to go medieval, and all the sanitation problems that accompany it.

Nice baseless smear. Extra points for being wrong. We have what we need right now. Here is an example of this in practice. No medieval required (TM). KOMU.com - Wind Energy In Rock Port - Coverage You Can Count On

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

Competition causes them to increase their prices and earn less money?

I thought you were asking why they wouldn't raise prices to whatever the market would bear, regardless of taxes. If you weren't, maybe you could explain what you were asking, because it wasn't clear.

[vmarks]

peeb,

Not all these solutions work for all areas, and they don't work for very long.

North Missouri is fine for wind, but central Missouri is not. It takes 9mph to get turbines turning and you just can't do that everywhere.

Solar is fine and well for areas that aren't overcast or rain prone.

Solar equipment ages badly, breaking at about the same time frame that you recover your costs from it, so just when you get done recouping the initial investment, it's time to do it all over again.

Nuclear functions everywhere and carbon functions everywhere.

You keep insisting that the government is propping up the carbon economy. You haven't delineated exactly how, or how much - just that the full cost of externalities aren't in the price we pay.

As a separate note:

I'm personally toying with the idea of converting my ancient volkswagen beetle to electric, but I find that the cost to do so in a way that will get me good travel range and good acceleration (got to be able to merge at a highway on-ramp, need to be able to go 120 miles on a charge) is prohibitive.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I thought you were asking why they wouldn't raise prices to whatever the market would bear, regardless of taxes. If you weren't, maybe you could explain what you were asking, because it wasn't clear.

My position is that the oil companies will charge the price that maximizes profit, no higher and no lower. If you increase their fixed costs, this price doesn't change.

Regarding the gas tax vacation, oil companies in the summer are working at full capacity and increase their prices until they can't sell it all. So removing the gas tax will not lower prices at all, and will just put the extra money into the pockets of the oil companies. McCain being a Republican, it makes sense that he'd want to give our tax dollars to oil companies, but Hillary's argument is a bit more mysterious.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Not all these solutions work for all areas, and they don't work for very long.

That's why different solutions are required for different places.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Solar is fine and well for areas that aren't overcast or rain prone.

The world's largest solar installs are in Germany, which has an average sun of less than Seattle. Solar does not require Nevada.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Solar equipment ages badly, breaking at about the same time frame that you recover your costs from it, so just when you get done recouping the initial investment, it's time to do it all over again.

That's not true.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Nuclear functions everywhere and carbon functions everywhere.

That's also not true.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You keep insisting that the government is propping up the carbon economy. You haven't delineated exactly how, or how much - just that the full cost of externalities aren't in the price we pay.

Yes, I have, extensively. Read the whole thread.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'm personally toying with the idea of converting my ancient volkswagen beetle to electric, but I find that the cost to do so in a way that will get me good travel range and good acceleration (got to be able to merge at a highway on-ramp, need to be able to go 120 miles on a charge) is prohibitive.

Yes, don't do it except as a hobby. When you replace it, look into batteries in a new car.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by peeb

When you replace it (your old car), look into batteries in a new car.

Never. I can imagine nothing so fiscally irresponsible.

The point of buying used cars and owning them for as long as possible is that they are paid for. The cost of ownership approaches zero, excepting small maintenance and fuel. The cost of new, even if new minimizes the fuel cost, is orders of magnitude higher.

I can take the existing vehicle and fuel inject it (more efficient than carburetion) or I could electrify it. But I cannot in good conscience consider a new car.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Never. I can imagine nothing so fiscally irresponsible.

The point of buying used cars and owning them for as long as possible is that they are paid for. The cost of ownership approaches zero, excepting small maintenance and fuel. The cost of new, even if new minimizes the fuel cost, is orders of magnitude higher.

I can take the existing vehicle and fuel inject it (more efficient than carburetion) or I could electrify it. But I cannot in good conscience consider a new car.

I meant 'new to you' - I agree, I never buy news cars, but I presume you are not driving a 1911 car - you replace it periodically with a car 5-15 (or whatever) years old. At some point batteries are going to become mainstream in that age bracket. That's what I am proposing. What you are talking about re injecting etc is a fun hobby if you're into it, but not something that should be recommended as being cost effective.
BTW, the cost of ownership of an older car certainly does not approach zero!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nice baseless smear. Extra points for being wrong. We have what we need right now. Here is an example of this in practice. No medieval required (TM). KOMU.com - Wind Energy In Rock Port - Coverage You Can Count On

....and the have the in Palm Springs
Not in Ted Kennedy's back yard.
URGENT!! THE BATTLE TO SAVE NANTUCKET SOUND IS NOT OVER
Senator Kennedy faces fight in Congress on Cape Wind

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Not in my back yard.
Cape Wind- Americas First offshore wind farm-Nantucket Sound
Senator Kennedy faces fight in Congress on Cape Wind

So what's your point? That there are stone agers who want to hold us back in a last-century carbon economy? Sure, but they're dying out. Most Massachusetts citizens support it: 81% of adults supported the project, 61% of Cape Cod residents supported it, and only 14% of adults oppose it.
Besides, Kennedy lost - the wind farm is going ahead. "Cape Wind received final environmental approval from the Commonwealth of Massachusettes on March 30, 2007. The US Minerals Management Service gave federal approval for the project on January 14, 2008"

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So what's your point? That there are stone agers who want to hold us back in a last-century carbon economy? Sure, but they're dying out.

Massachusetts is not full of conservatives.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Massachusetts is not full of conservatives.

You're accusing Conservatives of being stone agers? I don't think all of them are in bed with Big Carbon. Look, oil companies know that they are on the wrong side of history. They are all investing in renewables, but trying to wring the last dregs out of a dying economy. It's in everyone's long term interest to kill carbon subsidies and help Big Oil transition.

Not all Conservatives are stupid, Chongo.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I meant 'new to you' - I agree, I never buy news cars, but I presume you are not driving a 1911 car - you replace it periodically with a car 5-15 (or whatever) years old. At some point batteries are going to become mainstream in that age bracket. That's what I am proposing. What you are talking about re injecting etc is a fun hobby if you're into it, but not something that should be recommended as being cost effective.
BTW, the cost of ownership of an older car certainly does not approach zero!

My VW is from 1968-1971.
My Chevrolet is from 1962.

The VW needs an engine rebuild, which I will do myself. The pistons and cylinders are likely fine, but the crankshaft and connecting rod bearings may need to be replaced. Cost? about 70 bucks.
First money I'll have spent on it in the past four years. Four years ago, I put new brakes on it, 30 bucks.

The Chevrolet hasn't had any money put into it since I changed its camshaft and hydraulic lifters in 1998. The camshaft wore an exhaust lobe round, giving it a lumpy idle and running less efficiently than it ought.

The wife's car is a 1998 mitsubishi which I had to change throttle body on due to a failed throttle position sensor. I also had to change fuel filter on it, and headliner, and harmonic balancer pulley, and other things that just haven't failed on the older cars.

The daily driver for me is a 1997 pontiac sunfire convertible. I put a battery in it. and an air filter. and an oil filter and brakes. The wiring to the a/c compressor and the center console has gone iffy, and I'm currently tracing it out. But this car cost $900 and runs fantastic.

The idea of electrifying the beetle is that for most short range trips within 120 mi, I could completely drive it instead of the pontiac and cut my gas costs to zero, shifting the energy cost to the power bill.
Even so, I would still need it to be able to merge on highway on-ramps, because that's the nature of the city I live in.

Summary: the newer cars I own cost more to keep working in good condition than the older ones. The cost of electrifying the beetle should work out to be less than buying a new/new-used hybrid.

[peeb]

OK, you may be right, since you're clearly a hobbyist - my point stands for the rest of us. Unless this is your thing (it seems to be yours) it's not generally a cost effective idea. This seems good value to you because you're not costing out the time to do it - that's fine, but for me to pay a mechanic to do that would not be a good idea.

[vmarks]

Actually,
I've hit on a way that anyone could do it.

Poulsen Hybrid

Granted, it's 3k, but it's an easy to put together kit. If you can change a tire, you can install it and save fuel.

remains to be seen if I'll do it to the VW beetle, but it's an interesting idea.

[peeb]

Sounds interesting - are there any independent reviews of it? Be cool if it was as good as it looks.

[Chongo]

I stated, every time there a plans to open a new or expand an existing refinery, BAM, lawsuit.
Environmental Group Sues to Block Oil Refinery Expansion

An environmental group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit intended to stop the expansion of a BP oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana. A shortage of oil refining capacity is often mentioned as one reason for soaring gasoline prices.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is challenging air permits granted to the refinery by the State of Indiana. It’s part of the “ongoing fight against excessive pollution in northwest Indiana and Chicago,” the NRDC said in a news release.

The permits granted to BP by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management “simply do not protect the public and do not live up to the law,” said NRDC attorney Ann Alexander. “The failure of Indiana and BP to take the public interest and the law seriously has forced the issue and required that this case be brought before the federal courts.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-07-10.html

By Jared Allen
Posted: 07/10/08 01:28 PM [ET]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday shut the door on expanding oil and gas drilling beyond areas that have already been approved for energy exploration, drawing a clear distinction from her counterparts in charge of the Senate.

“This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. “It’s a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.”

Gas was a little over $2 when she took control.
Pelosi knows as soon as it's announced that we are drilling prices will drop, and she can't have gas prices dropping before the election.

[OreoCookie]

@Chongo
Gas prices depend on the prices set on the international market, not on the promise that in five years or so, somewhere in the US, oil companies start drilling for oil.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Gas was a little over $2 when she took control.
Pelosi knows as soon as it's announced that we are drilling prices will drop, and she can't have gas prices dropping before the election.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Chongo
Gas prices depend on the prices set on the international market, not on the promise that in five years or so, somewhere in the US, oil companies start drilling for oil.

Ah supply and demand!! How can we increase supply when it keeps getting blocked by lawsuits and over regulation.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

@Chongo
Gas prices depend on the prices set on the international market, not on the promise that in five years or so, somewhere in the US, oil companies start drilling for oil.

Future oil supplies are exactly what determines todays oil prices.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Future oil supplies are exactly what determines todays oil prices.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it - Mohandas Ghandi

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

[Chongo]

So, Bush announces he is rescinding the executive ban on offshore drilling and oil drops $9.26 a barrel(6.3%).