digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Experts: We're 10 Years Away from Lowering Gas Prices

dallasnews.com — Energy experts have dismissed the candidates' plans for lowering gas prices, and say it'll be a decade before we can exert downward pressure on the price of gas.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • willscottsi, on 04/28/2008, -16/+62You see, that's exactly the news I want to hear: higher gas prices = greater incentive for renewables and alternative fuels... and fewer Suburbans :)
    • marketmou, on 04/28/2008, -8/+44Yes, that's all well and good, but you're also wishing war on humanity. That's what high gas prices mean.
      • rcarroll215, on 04/28/2008, -1/+12Yes, but that's how the market system works. Higher petroleum prices will push demand for alternatives up. As soon as solar and wind power become more economical than an oil burning power plant, which way do you think energy companies will go? It may be a while before we have a cheap viable alternative for oil, but high prices are the growing pains that will force us to get the ball rolling.
        • darling, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Maybe it was implied, but I guess the rest of that comment was that an energy source that's compatible with our environment is helping humanity. If it can be provided at or below current petroleum prices then that'll also be helping humanity.
      • merper, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1But it's also inevitable. A finite resource's extraction rate is bound to peak at some point and our psychology and political systems don't have long-term vision to plan for that occurrence. If market forces raise the price even beyond these geological constraints, then the combined pressure will give us a strong short-term incentive to develop alternate energies. The best we could have ever realistically hoped for was a high price plateau to spur innovation without drastically reducing the actual supply of energy, and with any luck that's where we are now.
    • Gerz1219, on 04/28/2008, -3/+30Your equation implies that, within the next ten years or so, we will discoverable a renewable/alternative fuel source that contains roughly as much energy as oil. Anything less than that historic achievement is going to result in oil shocks that will lead to massive global depression. Too many people seem to take it as an article of faith that there's a team of brilliant scientists in white lab coats who are inevitably going to solve this problem, when it's entirely possible that our alternative energy research will fail and we'll just run out of oil. We're in much deeper ***** than the media suggests, as though a bunch of Suburban-owning profligates can just scale back and that'll fix everything.
      • MrSlumberjack, on 04/28/2008, -8/+3Bring on the shock
        • nycmac247, on 04/28/2008, -4/+2You'll regret saying that when the gov't is marching us into work camps
          • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2that will never happen, there will be revolution first.
          • bitterbug, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1That's kind of why I stopped thinking it's a good idea to remove guns from the general population. Sure, there's a terrible cost, but we can mitigate it somewhat with proper training and responsibility. But if the populace isn't armed, and the people who control the army decide to start grabbing people off the streets there won't be much anyone can do about it.
            And though I really don't expect my government (Canada) to do such a thing any time soon, sometimes I wonder about the future freedom of my neighbors to the south.
        • SkippyDoorknob, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4Yeah, cause a massive global depression would be a good thing...
        • JakeyG14, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1Slumberjack's just so controversial, it's simply scandalous.
          • MrSlumberjack, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1What I'm saying is that in order for us to make any significant progress in shifting from old habits, there needs to be a serious eye-opener. Somehow we need to start thinking and choosing for ourselves rather than waiting for someone else to make the transitions and lay out our future for us.
      • XFARB6, on 04/28/2008, -2/+2Gerz: The answers have been right in front of us for 30 years. What is lacking is a cost effective way to deliver the alternatives. For that we can thank the failure of 5 consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democrat, as well as the unwillingness of the energy industry to get ready for a time that everyoe knew was coming because they had not finished depreciating the oil delivery infrastructure, and were making too much easy profit from the status quo, which is what business is all about. Now that the price of traditional fuel is going through the roof, we are coming to the balance point where alternatives will be cost effective, and they will be brought to you by the same people who now bring you petrolium related products.
      • Hananda, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Meh. We've already got breeder reactors. There's a couple thousand years worth of power, and presumably we'll have viable fusion reactors long before the fissionables run out. That being said, there's no way the construction of enough reactors to meet US power requirements will happen in a timely fashion.
    • ngmcs8203, on 04/28/2008, -7/+18I'm all for renewable and alternative fuel options (especially hydrogen) but what is it with the insatiable anger towards big SUVs? If you've got 3 kids, a dog and want to go on camping for a week, would you rather somebody take two cars or one? It's not like station wagons get much better mileage anyways. (I should state that I drive a 16 mpg Yukon Denali, have a golden and two kids.)
      • akatsuki, on 04/28/2008, -9/+11Minivan?
        • powerhouse, on 04/28/2008, -0/+9Minivan's are almost as bad, but people don't have an irrational hatred of them.

          2008 Honda Odyssey 2WD
          New EPA MPG
          16 City 18 Combined 23 Hwy
          • bitterbug, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I dislike minivan *and* SUVs. They come with huge blind spots and the drivers typically don't seem to realize it or don't care because they're in a "bigger, safer" vehicle. And while it pisses me off when they change into the lane my car is occupying because they can't see me and don't do shoulder checks, it absolutely infuriates me when they do the same thing and I'm on a motorcycle and have to take evasive action or possibly be run over by them or forced into oncoming traffic.
            Oddly enough, I don't remember ever having anyone in a car pull into the lane I'm in. I've had them tailgate (bad idea when you look at car vs. motorcycle stopping distance), but no sideswipes yet.
            I got off my bike at a light to explain to the guy who was tailgating that if I had to stop suddenly by the time he stopped he'd be 120 feet past my corpse, but he wouldn't roll down his window. So I pantomimed it with my hands. I wasn't even making angry noises. Just wanted him to be aware. But I think he might have peed his pants.
      • rcarroll215, on 04/28/2008, -14/+15Then stop having children... please.
        • PabloMac, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2What if someone had convinced your parents of that?
        • sufo, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1You wouldn't have asked that question
      • wigenite, on 04/28/2008, -4/+10Fine, then take your SUV camping once a year then. Just dont commute to back and forth to work EVERY day, by your self, stuck in traffic, with no camping gear or towing necessary.

        Also, there are vehicles that have more interior room and are safer than SUV's.
        • powerhouse, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4You sounding a bit self-righteous. For most people the extra insurance, licensing, maintenance, and storage expense does not make having two vehicles cost effective. Also who the ***** made you the camping nazi? Families spending quality time together supporting our parks and forests is a good thing.
          • Logicexe, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Just like how people have the freedom to purchase an SUV that they'll only *really* use for two weeks out of the year, he has the right to criticize their dumb decisions.

            If you could save only $10 a week in fuel costs by driving a small fuel efficient vehicle to work and back instead of a SUV (you'll probably save more than that) you could easily save enough to rent an SUV for a week or two for those camping trips and still have money left over to help pay for the vacation.
          • powerhouse, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2I think you assume too much. Even assuming he only uses it two weeks out of the year (which I highly doubt). Here is a rental quote for two weeks:

            Price Quote
            2 Weeks @
            $ 436.49 USD $ 872.98 USD
            Subtotal $ 872.98 USD
            IOWA EXCISE TAX $ 43.65 USD
            SALES TAX $ 52.38 USD
            * Total Estimated
            Charges $ 969.01 USD
          • wigenite, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I never said that he should buy a second vehicle. I also never criticized camping. I love camping.
            I'm criticizing him for making a vehicle decision based not on what it would be used for the most, but what he might use it for once in a while, where a vehicle rental makes more sense.

            I do Personally own 2 cars, a 2 seat sports cars that is a weekend track car and a large sedan for day to day life, as well as camping, towing, and carrying up to 6 seatbelted passengers. I'm not saying thats the best, or what he should do. its just where I'm at. The large sedan gets about 25mpg city and 28mpg highway when commuting by myself.

            I have and do rent larger vehicles when carying larger number of passengers for greater distances and towing larger loads.
          • Logicexe, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I'm not saying he only uses it two weeks out of the year, I'm saying he only uses it for things that he couldn't do with a normal sized car for two weeks out of the year. Remember, I'm not talking about the guys who actually use their SUVs regularly enough to justify the added cost. I'm talking about the guys who could just as easily get around in a normal car but drive an SUV anyway.

            My $10 a week estimate was on the low end. It could easily cost upwards of $20-30 extra per week depending on how you drive and how much you drive. At $20 a week it starts getting comparable to just renting a car for two weeks.

            Damn, renting cars is expensive in Iowa. A quick search just got me an SUV for two weeks for $760 CDN (with tax it's about $830). That's quite a difference, but still well within the range of money you could save by driving a fuel efficient car.
      • Logicexe, on 04/28/2008, -3/+12You see that's the problem with most people's reasoning when they buy cars. People buy cars not based on what they'll use them for every day, but based on what they'll use them for once in a while. With all the money you'll save on gasoline by driving a smaller car you'll be able to rent a minivan or SUV for that weekend camping trip with some left over to help pay for the vacation.
        • norcalscan, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2And you won't worry about hitting that big rock out on the trail because it isn't your car. (own a ford SUV rental return, warranty paid for itself in a transmission replacement at 60k miles, damn renters)
      • MrSlumberjack, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Are you kidding me? Station wagons probably get on average at least 5-10 mpg better than SUVs.
      • saikyan, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4But how often do you go camping for a week? The issue is that the vast majority of people driving big SUVs are not going camping, they're driving 20+ miles back and fourth to work every day with ONE passenger. Incredibly wasteful.
      • kamikaze87, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Because as much as people like to pretend that they have figured out the answer to ALL of life's problems, that they are brilliantly unique and have a higher class of intelligence than all of the SUV drivers..most of them are just sheep flocking to the herd repeating what everyone else says.

        "YEAH SUVS SUCK!"
        Let's stop slinging ***** at each other for 2 ***** seconds and start bitching at the automobile industry for killing the electric car. Their are a few SUV's that actually get better gas mileage than most cars.

        Oh by the way, I drive an 07 4-cylinder Altima.
        • BukkakeNinja, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1Oh yeah!? Well I drive a vintage 1994 Ford Escort Station Wagon!!
        • t0x2c, on 04/28/2008, -2/+01997 Nissan Maxima
        • asspants, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3POST YOUR CAR ENGINE SIZE, MAKE AND MODEL HERE, KTHXBYE
      • gotrootdude, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Yes, take two cars! My wife had the same arguement as you.
        Last year we sold our mini-van and truck and bought two older Toyotas at a cost of $2,100. I bought a used tow trailer for $400 to take the place of the truck. One's a '89 for $600, the other a '95 for $1,500. With a little eco-modding "grill blocks" and hypemileing, we now average around 40mpg each, plus we save on insurance.
        Recently, we took a 1000+ mile trip, squeezed in a bit, but managed to save over $400 bucks in gas in just two days. Not to mention, rarely do we need to drive both cars for anything.
        If I had to estimate, I would say that our family is now saving over $400-450/mo in costs over the minivan and the truck. The extra money is sure coming in handy.

        DO IT. DO IT NOW!
    • polish97, on 04/28/2008, -7/+1More K cars like the eighties. 22hp four door mid-size sedans...
    • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -0/+11The only flaw in your argument is that the children growing up today are used to seeing $3-4 a gallon for gas so they're not going to be outraged by paying the equvalent of say $2.50-$3 a gallon for the power it would take to run an electric vehicle. The price point has been set already. Growing up I remember gas at 20-30 cents a gallon and even gas wars between stations that brought it down to around 9 cents a gallon, so seeing it at the levels it is now is extremely horrendous given my reference point. But by the time that kids growing up today start driving, the price levels now are their reference point so they're going to swallow horrendous costs of alternative energy without batting an eyelash.
      • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1hopefully theyre paid more or they'll be more broke than we are at the moment.
    • N3M3515, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Not to mention the trickle down effect and inflation caused by this madness, All other goods and services are more expensive because of higher energy prices. The biggest problem I see is that the low/middle class jobs aren't keeping up wages with the rate of inflation. According to the CPI index* (an average price change of thousands of goods and services) since last march the index has risen 4.0%, meaning if you haven't gained a 4% increase in pay, you are now making less then you did last year.

      *http://www.bls.gov/CPI/
      • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1that trickle is the rich pissing on the poor

        the middle class is a buffer. it keeps the hands of the poor off the throats of the rich. remove it at your peril.
    • legoalert33, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2LS1 FTW!
    • macweirdo42, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2This is not what I want to hear - I mean, I'm glad there will be pressure for alternative energy, but damn, this is one bittersweet "I told you so." I mean, after years and years of, "Hey guys, maybe we should stop guzzling gas like this, we can't possibly sustain consumption at these levels," and having to hear "***** you, this is America, it's our right," it's finally coming back to bite us.
    • stillasleep00, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Did you even read the article? The very reason lower gas prices are ten years away is because we're ten years away from effective renewable fuels!
      • sailadayaway, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1exactly, the experts said that the reason the price will start to fall is because demand for oil will go down.
    • pentupentropy, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1There is no CHEAPER alternative solution unless you have a solar powered car. Other than that, even the electrics are running on energy made by oil and coal. Gas prices are not expensive anyway: http://www.nospintalk.com/content/view/104/1/
  • MatthewK, on 04/28/2008, -2/+16Hopefully by that time a cheaper alternative fuel source will be widely accepted.
    • jgzman, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7Basic Economics: a cheaper alternative to ANYTHING is a downward pressure on prices.
    • sailadayaway, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1That's the reason they'll be falling, RTFA
    • PolishLogic, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Or by that time we'll have been able to open new refineries, drill in ANWR, as well as having started use the oil that's under the Montana/Canada border.

      Maybe even oil shale.
  • munen123, on 04/28/2008, -4/+11I agree this is good news. This will force us to innovate, and find more efficient renewable energy sources!
    • rex84, on 04/28/2008, -2/+8Yay! Oil companies sticking it to us in the ass for 10 more years is good news!
      • djSyndrome, on 04/28/2008, -6/+3They're only sticking you in the ass if you're dumb enough to be driving a gas guzzler. At 35mpg, I'm hardly feeling the impact.
        • subliminalurge, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6Even if you don't drive at all, you'll be feeling the impact soon enough when you're paying $15 for a gallon of milk
        • ghendric, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0hahaha.. 35 mpg isn't nothing.. our frickin' cars should be getting a 100mpg.. at least!. My 13 yr old car gets 35mpg now and that isn't good enough! I would ride a bike to work but that's a 50 mile round trip. I have no choice but to get reamed at the gas pump. Those that say America is free just don't get it. We are slaves to the system with no way out other than to quit cold turkey...
  • jxfallout, on 04/28/2008, -1/+38And within those 10 years, the prices will have skyrocketed so much that a minor price-drop won't make too much of a difference.
    • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -5/+3within a few years our economy will completely collapse. at my work the corporate headquarters in seattle is having people take more and more telecommuting days to offset the cost of gas prices which is demoralizing employees.
      • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2i love it when people digg down statements of fact.
        just because you don't want to see it, doesnt mean it isnt happening.
        • mcquitty, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Facts are irrelevant, sir. /sarcasm
      • merper, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1People at your office are UPSET about getting to work from home?
  • farfegnugen, on 04/28/2008, -14/+15It amazes me how car companies can still produce SUVs in light of all this. Screw the new hybrid Suburban, how about you just stop making them all together? That'll help the environment, too.
    • heir0fisildur, on 04/28/2008, -0/+21It's because consumers still want to buy SUVs. Until demand for such vehicles drop significantly the car companies will in fact still make the cars.
      • Logicexe, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Demand has already dropped. Many people are finding themselves stuck with SUVs that no one wants to buy.

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24317610/

        Of course, as our consumption drops, China and India will keep growing ensuring that gas prices continue to rise unabated. Oh well.
    • brstilson, on 04/28/2008, -1/+12car companies exist to make money, and they will build the vehicles that people want to buy. The fault lies with the people who are buying SUVs just as much as the car companies that still make them.
      • bjzq8, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2So you eliminate the SUV...and people switch to large vans as the "large vehicle" of choice, just like 15 years ago (when SUVs were not as prevalent.) Okay, you eliminate large vans, and...suddenly, there is no way to haul around groups of 15 people in an orderly fashion. Or allow repairmen/construction to cart around their equipment. Or perhaps you'd like to establish a Government Office of Vehicle Entitlement? Submit for 49942-A, and make sure you fill in subsection 3, and be sure to enclose your last 5 years of W2s, 1040s, and a signed affidavit from a government Vehicle Entitlement Inspector that you're allowed to order a van. Oh, and wait 6 months for the approval.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4Look at companies like GM and Ford who banked the future on Trucks and SUV's......now they are up a creek...esp. Ford.
    • Soave, on 04/28/2008, -3/+8What do you suggest a family of 5+ people buy instead?
      • pojut, on 04/28/2008, -6/+6Well, there is this horribly ugly thing called a minivan...they tend to not be quite as heavy and have more efficient engines in them...you might want to give one of those a shot.
        • subliminalurge, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4What's the towing capacity of a typical minivan?
          • pojut, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure, but not everyone tows stuff. Just like someone who owns a yard maintenance business would have no use for my RSX, I would have no use for their F-350 diesel super duty.
        • cowsgonemadd3, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Some 7 passenger suvs like the tahoe get like 21 on the road and 16 in the city. About the same as a minivan and they actually have "leg room"...
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5http://www.gadgetspage.com/cars/the-seven-person-t ...

      • Radar3D, on 04/28/2008, -8/+24Birth control?
      • YoshinoAiki, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0We'll just have to go back to the horse and carriage.
    • roflganker, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6There's a whole lot of people in the U.S. that don't have to know what gas costs, let alone care about it.
      • Akairenn, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5Actually, there's not that many people in the US that don't have to know what gas costs. At least, if you're looking per capita, total population, percentages, whatnot.

        No, the problem here is there's a bountiful surplus of stupidity in this country. When you see lone individuals driving huge SUVs that aren't even packed with groceries or whining brats, complaining about gas prices...
    • thedrue, on 04/28/2008, -2/+16For many people SUV's are an important vehicle, It is sort of like a pickup truck for a contractor(why doesn't anybody ever complain about the gas guzzling pickups?). Although Vans can carry just as many people they don't have the towing capacity or the rugged 4-wheel drive systems. The problem is not the SUV's it IS however the people who commute in them every day with nothing in them, just wasting gas and being horribly inefficient. My family owns a 1999 Dodge Durango, and when it is used it is for towing our 25 foot trailer around, or for carrying something big, or for towing a car. It is a utility vehicle, nothing more. Let me reiterate, there is nothing wrong with SUV's
      • spiffytech, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5The argument against SUVs is not absolute but a generalization. 99% of the SUVs I see driving on the road are not towing anything and are not loaded with cargo/people. Given that information it's reasonable to generalize that SUVs are a needless drain on the petroleum market. There certainly exist genuine needs for people to own SUVs/pickups but few people buy them to accomodate those needs with any frequency, if at all.
        • ghendric, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0Why is it that the SUV is suddenly the first thing that everybody goes after when there is a gas issue? Why not go after the numb nuts that are building them and ask them "How is it we can send a frickin' probe to Mars that's millions of miles from earth but for some reason we can't make a car get at least a 100 or 200 mpg???"
      • Logicexe, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3Nobody is criticizing the people who genuinely need these vehicles or use them for practical purpose. My family has a Yukon which generally gets used once at most twice a week. There are people who actually use them, then there are the people who drive around the city everyday with no cargo, no passengers, they're not towing anything, with their air conditioners running full blast.
        • publiclurker, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3You forgot 3 yellow ribbons and a Jesus fish!
    • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7Actually there are some of us that don't have much choice in vehicles due to our height. Myself I currently drive a Touareg for three reasons:
      1. I fit in it.
      2. It's not a pickup truck, so it's small enough for my wife to drive too ( she's 5'2", I'm 6'5")
      3. I use it for work to make deliveries in so it's a dual purpose vehicle.

      I'd love to find a vehicle I could fit in comfortably, have an even larger cargo capacity than I do now, and get good gas mileage. Oh and I'd love a car that the tires weren't close to $900 to replace the four of them as well. So if you've got any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1Just get the rails installed further back. I'm 6'5 and I drove a civic hatchback for 4 years. Although, you lose the seat that's behind you.
      • pojut, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1You bought a German vehicle, and are complaining about how much it costs to maintain it?

        I have absolutely no sympathy for you. Maybe you shouldn't have bought a vehicle that costs more to maintain than it does to make the monthly payments.
    • scamper22, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3if you can afford a suburban, gas is not that expensive.
      Let's say you spend $2000 per year on a gas for your honda civic.
      even with 2X as bad fuel economy, you'd only be spending $4000 per year to drive around in your suburban.

      That extra 2 grand per year is nothing when you consider you just spend about 40 grand on a vehicle.
      Suffice to say, some people might want to spend that 2 grand on other things.
      some people don't mind spending it on a big car.
      • pojut, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Don't forget though, many people buy cars that they can afford to own but not afford to drive.

        When I was a mechanic in a shop, we very frequently saw people come in with 40-50-60 thousand dollar cars who said they couldn't get their grinding brakes fixed because they didn't have enough money.

        Just because you can pay the mortgage doesn't mean you have enough money to own a home. The same thing goes for a car. Just because you can buy it doesn't mean you can afford to drive it.
    • p51d007, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I guess you know your beloved Prius requires more "energy" to produce, than your evil SUV's?
      Not to mention the battery packs that will need replacing & disposal.
      • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I have read every comment and you are the first person to mention Prius.
    • CCricers, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2The problem I see with hybrid electrics today is that the nice-looking luxury ones are too expensive, and the cheap ones are too goofy and awkward looking. Why can't we hit a good middle ground with hybrid cars?
      • scamper22, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0you mean like the honda civic hybrid that looks exactly the same as the stylish honda civic and only costs a few grand more?
  • DaedalusX, on 04/28/2008, -4/+310 years is way too much speculation. You never now what technological breakthrough could happen in the next 10 years. Not all western countries are under the control of oil multinationals.
    • MikeFallopian, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1The article is assuming technological advances. Even a major breakthrough in alternative fuels will take time to penetrate the markets.
  • stikkitjim, on 04/28/2008, -2/+27*looks at Russia.... looks at USA.... Looks at North Pole...* Last one there is a rotten egg!
  • trer, on 04/28/2008, -3/+37So what really happens is that we are conditioned to accept that $4 is a fair price so outrage will be quelled until it gets to $5-6 then we again will be temporarily upset and respond with threats of boycotts distributed through email then begrudgingly accept this new price eventually. Then $4 will seem "low".
    • diggydougie, on 04/28/2008, -6/+4It's called inflation.
      • RJGONZO, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8No, it's called Speculation, and that's the ***** that REALLY needs to be stopped.
      • JasonsLan, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2if its inflation. shouldn't my wages go up sometime to compensate?
      • MsArtGeek, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It's called price gouging and market manipulation, son. You've been had.
    • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -1/+7Bingo. It's probably never going to go down, since everybody pays it now. It may fluctuate 10-20 cents up or down, but it's not going back to 1999 levels.
    • FREETHINKER2008, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7That's exactly what's happening now, people are happy when they find gas for $3.39.
    • merper, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Wtf are you going to boycott? The dinosaurs for not breeding enough?
    • funkywood, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1When he said it in his economic speech I thought McCain's King Canute impression trying to hold back oil prices was just pandering to the masses and hypothetical since he isn't actually president yet. I didn't think he was serious.

      That said his economic policy is better than Obama's. This will be Obama's biggest weakness, more than his color.
      • merper, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1 The republicans I've seen in my lifetime do worse than tax and spend, they just spend and spend. They're a direct translation of people who take out credit card debt to pay off other credit card debt. A man who has an inclination to go to war with Iran, who actually thinks that we have the capacity to go to war with Iran, is far more disastrous to our collapsing economy than any tax hikes Obama has planned.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 04/28/2008, -5/+18Electric cars are the way to go..
    • MrSlumberjack, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6*will be the way to go
    • orangefly, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf9vY0HGWEI&eurl=ht ...
      pedal car....
    • nycmac247, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1power grid could not handle draw, even if people juiced up at night when others are asleep
      • Hananda, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Upgrade the power grid. If it's between footing the bill for the power companies who should've done it 30 years ago, or going Amish, I think the taxpayer would go for option 1.
    • gotrootdude, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0Convert septic tank to methane digester, convert car to run on methane, problem solved.

      Better yet, grow a garden and use your garden waste to feed the digester.
    • darling, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Source neutral cars are the way to go. Electric is great because then we'd have access to, for example, nuclear. Non-base load technologies like wind and solar could also help store electricity rather than have the power company store the electricity.
    • mike17032, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1If you want to go about 100 miles max at a top speed of about 50, sure.
    • PolishLogic, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Because throwing away all those spent batteries will be great for the environment.
  • ryazwinski, on 04/28/2008, -1/+14I'd love to know how prices can possibly go down when supply is being consumed.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/28/2008, -1/+8In an election year, it can make sense. Everything can!
    • cadmiumpaint, on 04/28/2008, -4/+3there is only so much oil in the earth. there are only so many drilling operations, and so many refineries. The U.S. hasn't built a refinery since the 70's but the amount of cars in this country has at least doubled since then. You do the math....
      • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Actually, there is plenty of oil. OPEC has stated that twice now. Another fact is that there are 10 refineries in working condition in the US that are not running. The oil companies said that they are not going to bring them to full production, because it would cut into profits.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2i completely misread that ...i thought you said "possibly go up" nevermind the other comment..
  • onClipEvent, on 04/28/2008, -2/+51i find it strange a depleting non-renewable resource be less expensive in the future...
    • zeromancer, on 04/28/2008, -4/+5in 10 years, alternative fuels will be cheaper than gas, decreasing demand and prices.
      • Logicexe, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3...we hope.
      • Kamill85, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1This news is just amazing! :)
        If in 10 years they'll be cheaper than gasoline, then who would want to use gasoline?

        It's almost like: In the future we'll create something cool and new, so currently outdated stuff will be useless and cheap, hurray!
    • CedEx, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0What I find strange (though I'm not sure if it's just me seeing this or everyone), is that a reply to a thread is older than the parent... onClipEvent's comment being younger than his reply by zeromancer...
    • SQUIDwarrior, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Ever read Stephen King's story "The Jaunt"? In a nutshell, teleportation was developed which quickly replaced all previous forms of transport. Oil became worth about $0.08 barrel (or gas was $0.08 a gallon; something like that) because there was no longer any need for it as a transportation fuel. Why ship something via truck when you can just shove it through a "jaunt" portal and it instantly comes out at the destination? Likewise, if an alternative is developed that essentially replaces oil as a primary transportation energy source (i.e. ultra-high efficiency batters + electric cars), demand will diminish and with it, the price.

      Of course I could be completely wrong and/or over-simplifying things, but you never know.
  • wbienek, on 04/28/2008, -11/+23Listen.. people who buy the gas guzzlers will continue to do so.. people who make 300+ k a year aren't affected by 3 4 or 5$ gas.. or even 6-7-8$.. its lower and middle class.. so all the 'GREEN' crap is just hurting people w/ less money..

    Environmentalism is a fun game for people w/ plenty of money.. for the lesser income people, it huts very badly.

    • munen123, on 04/28/2008, -13/+6wrong, the green crap is the only thing that will save the middle class.

      people who make 300k are rich.

      the green crap will create jobs and growth for an economy that is failing, if you havent noticed.
      • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -6/+2300K being rich is relative to where you live. In the Bay Area, 300K means you're doing fairly well but by the time you figure in a house payment I wouldn't call it rich. I would think in the Mid West or the South, you could live fairly comfortably on 300K a year though.
        • meruru, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4Even in CA if you can't get by on 300k you are doing something wrong
    • cadmiumpaint, on 04/28/2008, -0/+21most people who own suburbans and gas guzzling SUV's aren't making 300k a yr i can promise you that.
      • LooterMcBeer, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6Your right cause they are driving gas guzzling BMW M6's and MB SL65 AMG's
        • 1charmedlife, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Not all of them. Don't lump all the people making good livings into one bunch. A fair amount of the people I know making decent dough are the ones ditching their gas guzzlers for electric cars or hybrids, and putting solar on their houses, etc.
          Unfortunately, for the many many millions who rent homes, the only thing renters can do is to change out their freakin' light bulbs... big deal. There are no incentives whatsoever for landlords who have apartments or home being rented out, to put take any kind of energy saving measures since it doesn't effect them.
          Anyway - the point was, I know a lot of people making $200-1m/year and they are by far the larger segment of people I see investing their own $$ into things that save energy (it IS a different story for the SUPER-rich, and their habits are disgusting, largely).
      • jdavid, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1but they will be in 2 years. i never understood why people need to buy such large cars for 1 person. i drive a sports car, but that is FOR FUN, not for economy. I am actually so impressed with the Tesla, that i am looking to sell my car and wait until an electric meets my needs. (Yes i am willing to go car less until someone makes a car for me, in my price range.) with companies like zip car, and rental cars out there, you really do not need to own a car if you live next to mass transit.
        • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1What is this mass transit thin you speak of?
    • azurechaos, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3"Fun game"...as if the idea of living sustainably has no merit whatsoever, simply a childish way to pass the time. It certainly is more difficult for low-income people to afford new green inventions/alternatives, but correct me if i'm wrong, the ultimate goal of innovating with new energy sources is to provide cheaper, easier, and more renewable methods of acquiring energy. Environmentalism itself doesn't hurt low-income people, so I think that's a rather misguided blanket statement to make. Many people I know who are interested in environmentalism are also working to help enable low-income communities to provide their own food through community gardens and the sort.
      • Bronowyn, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Victory Gardens (especially with all the food shortages) worldwide, will be the next thing to come back... grow your own produce.
        Also, I know my parents fall into the lower class bracket, they were middle until my stepdad lost his job. And they have a garden that can feed them the entire summer. Plus my mom cans whatever can't be used. It's a very WWII concept, but I think it will bring people back from the brink. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden
        Also, speaking of them, greening is actually saving them a ton of money. When their old lightbulbs died, they were buying (10+ years ago mind you) CFLs, before it was in vogue. They STILL have those CFLs working in their house. Not buying lightbulbs, and having them use less energy IS cost savings for the lower to middle class. I know I save about 60 bucks by switching to all CFLs.

        Greening is easy and not very costly.
    • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2people who make 300k ARE rich. i dont see why you're getting dugg down.
      the only people i know who made close to that, one couple had a million dollar house in laguna hills, california and would spend weekends having cocktail pool parties and the other person had a house in the hollywood hills where you could see the hollywood sign out his kitchen window.
      yeah i think 300k is RICH.
      • rockefeller2, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Actually there are many doctors and lawyers making 300k who just piss it away. Just because you make 300k doesn't mean you're rich. I suggest judging people's wealth by their assetts, not monthly employment income.
  • Ryan166, on 04/28/2008, -3/+49April 28th, 2018 ...Unleaded gas prices fall from $15 to $14.86 ....YIPEEE!!!
    • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2In 2018 we won't be using the US dollar.
    • Andysan, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2It is probably a pretty good bet that the 'stuff' will hit the fan long before $15/gal is reached. There are going to be holes in Alaska, nuclear plants all over the place, coal gasification, and maybe windmills in Ted's backyard. People have passively watched the feel-good folks screw things up for years and will likely change things in a big messy hurry rather than endlessly put up with it. Too bad, but that is the way it will go.
  • diggydougie, on 04/28/2008, -10/+28Remember, it's not higher gas prices. It's our devalued currency. It means the same in the end to your wallet. The fed is pumping out money to pay for Bush's war, which makes the dollar worthless and oil and food more expensive.
    • ender7074, on 04/28/2008, -12/+3Wow awesome way to string together things that arent related. Check your facts next time.
      • pojut, on 04/28/2008, -0/+10They are actually very related. A lot of the economy's problems could be solved if we weren't pushing billions into a foriegn country every year. The money spent every year in Iraq would be enough for the entire education budget as well as a fair amount of the infrastructure budget.

        Lets see...spend more money on killing people, or spend more money on educating our own so we can figure out stuff that makes killing others unnecessary...gee, I wonder which one we should do...
        • RJGONZO, on 04/28/2008, -5/+3So you brought the education system into the mix, which is also unrelated to the original topic of gasoline prices and the oil prices that precede them. The speculative markets, along with the weakened dollar are the reason that prices are so high, if the speculative market magically went away, we'd have prices half of what they are right now and this wouldn't even be an issue, as gas prices would still be around $2 based on inflation rates over the past few years.
          • pojut, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Again, without all of the money being spent in Iraq, we would have that money available for other things right here at home. In doing that, we wouldn't have to be cutting the budget on so many things. Not to mention all the hundreds of millions of gallons of gas that go every year into Iraq for things like APC's, tanks, etc.
      • schnikies79, on 04/28/2008, -0/+9Really, then why every other day do you hear this or so "oil prices slipped today as the dollar gained value against the euro"? They are VERY related.

        This is well known, check your own facts. The economy and speculation are playing a much larger part here than supply and demand.
    • alpinecow, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Dollar is down 44.6% vs. the Euro between 3/2003 and 3/2008. Price of a barrel of oil is up 83.4% over the same time period. There's no way the weaker dollar is responsible for all of the increase in oil prices...
      • schnikies79, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6No, about 1/4 of the remaining increase is supply and demand, the other 3/4 would be speculation.

        "Oil prices jumped to new highs today after an Iranian speed boat was shot at." That headline alone proves speculation.
      • davewelsh79, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Are you serious?
        You do realize that if the dollar is worth 44.6% less than it used to be then it is worth 55.4% of it's original amount. That would mean imports should cost you 181% of their old price (1/0.554). That means prices SHOULD have increased 81%.
    • b0rg, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1It's both. Gas costs have been steadily rising even in coutries with stable currencies. We just happen to have a leader who's going to try both pouring gasoline on a fire *then* smothering it with paper.
  • Homerr, on 04/28/2008, -6/+10It would be better if these high gas prices paid for something like national health care instead of record profits for oil companies.
    • ender7074, on 04/28/2008, -2/+7Its all going to be the same in the end. A national health care system will just be an additional tax on the middle class much like higer gas prices are. If we get that idiot Obama, we'll probably have both. Oh happy day.
      • Rustymetal, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Yeah, honestly why does everyone want national health care? We would all be treated like the veterans.
        ronpaul ronpaul ronpaul!
    • thedrue, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3I agree! There is no reason for oil companies to do what they are doing, other than to make themselves richer...
      • Waterrat, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1 I agree with Homerr.
        However,if we think gas prices will ever be lower,I think we are just spitting in the wind.
        Why would they ever drop prices down to where they were like say ten years ago?
        They won't lower prices cause then their CEO's could not buy those twin corporate his and hers jets and a villa in France for each of his childern.
    • schnikies79, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I prefer that it pays for roads and infrastructure, like the tax was originally meant to pay.
      • b0rg, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Clinton put... what was it? a 10-cent tax on gas? You would have thought that Jocelyn Elders was personally going to castrate every republican with a pair of rusty pliers.
        12 years later, we've got the 4-buck-a-gallon gas, and the only thing we have to show in the interim is... well I'd say our roads, except they're not in good shape either.
    • dmadzak, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I swear, this comment is as bad as "Dems are worse for the economy" or "Reps are worse for the economy", the oil companies are not the problem here. Oil trades on the open market. The problem is a huge dependency on a resource that we do not control. Throw in a declining dollar on which the resource is priced and you have even more trouble. I fail to see how this is the fault of the oil companies. Lets work towards a solution here and stop the populist BS. Continue to work towards renewable energy, strengthen the currency and more domestic production. There is the solution to the problem instead of whining about the bogeyman.

      • PolishLogic, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Or drill ANWAR and the US/Canada border, all while opening new refineries. We could single-handedly flood the market as well as dramatically lower our costs.
  • cheezintern, on 04/28/2008, -1/+16Every thing's always 10 years away. hydrogen powered cars have been 10 years away for decades. Still, hopefully alternative fuels will be able to expand in use since by next election, our government will *hopefully* stop pandering to oil companies.
    As for the candidates, getting rid of the gas tax is such a bad idea it gives me a headache. So we save 18 cents for a week or 2. Then, since gas was slightly cheaper, demand goes up. At the end of the 'tax' holiday, gas wont be 18 cents more per gallon, it'll be way way more. Great idea, not!
    • gotrootdude, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0 Alternative fuels are already cheaper. The fuels aren't the problem, it's making the cars cheap enough so people will buy them..

      Although, if anyone wants to give me $100,000, I'll be happy to build them a fast car that runs on electricity, propane, unleaded, methane, bio-diesel and solar to boot.. I'll use a old car, that's in good shape, so the safety requirements will be met. :) Any takers?
  • dd240sx, on 04/28/2008, -4/+7***** hell how about figuring out how to use less gas or not any at all instead of lowering gas prices. what bunch of *****
  • hokie47, on 04/28/2008, -1/+15So lets ***** do something. This is the same BS they gave us 5 years ago when gas prices started to creep up. If we did something 5 years ago it would be only 5 years away not 10.
    • darling, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1A little over 5 years ago we also got into this damn war. Wouldn't it be great if we magically got 5 years back *and* 3 trillion dollars? And wouldn't it be great if we applied it toward alternative energy?
  • Ryan166, on 04/28/2008, -13/+9April 2018: Unleaded gas prices fall from $17 a gallon to $16.95 ...YIPEE!!!
    • MrSlumberjack, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Now why'd you go and do something like that?
    • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2We won't be using the US dollar in 2018.
  • dinki, on 04/28/2008, -1/+21There's those magical 10 years again. Ever noticed that it takes 10 years for any impending doom/triumph? Global warming, cure for cancer, lower gas prices.. all 10 years away ..

    Kinda like "Tomorrow, Tomorrow, you're always a day away"
    • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4i think we're less than 2 years from full out economic FAIL.
      gas prices are spiking alot faster than they were and we havent even hit summer yet.
    • b0rg, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Denny Crane!
  • bmorlok, on 04/28/2008, -0/+17"Experts" say we are always 10 years from (insert advancement in science here).

    Especially when it comes to any alternate fuels. We have been 10 years from electric cars for about 30 years now...
    • breckinshire, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Except now we really are making progress on electric cars, in that you will soon be able to walk into a showroom and buy one.
    • N3M3515, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Exactly, because you will have long forgetten about them by that time. And if they are correct they will be the first ones to come back yelling "I told you so!".
  • wbienek, on 04/28/2008, -6/+6What we need to do is drill the crap outta Alaska and Texas. Someone has once said we're trying to use up the resources of other countries first... hmm.. is this overly clever or just hogwash...?
    • cadmiumpaint, on 04/28/2008, -0/+6we already did drill the hell out of Texas.
      • truthhurts28, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0we are still drilling the hell out of texas
    • ender7074, on 04/28/2008, -5/+5Nope, its good info. The idiot environmentalists wont let us get to half of our domestic oil so we are at the mercy of OPEC and other nations.
    • Gerz1219, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4All of the oil in ANWR will buy us two or three years at best.
      • bjzq8, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Two or three years at what, full usage? Nobody is suggesting we switch to ANWR as the sole-source, but using more of what we have will make a dent. I live in Western Illinois, and there is an oil-producing area out here that was "tapped out" based on technology of the 60's...just think of how much more we could get out of areas like that if we applied today's technology. These areas are spread all over the country, and could make a significant impact if used.
        • Gerz1219, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

          There is an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil in the ANWR, about what the U.S. currently uses in one year. ANWR wells would take ten years to come online and we wouldn't reach peak production until 2025. By 2025, of course, the global oil supply will be in massive decline, demand will outstrip supply, and if we haven't found a superior renewable alternative to oil, we'll all be mired in a global war for food and water resources.

          I actually have no problem with drilling in the area, as I have little concern for the environmental considerations. My point is that it won't solve anything. We have to put an end to this conservative myth that a bunch of bleeding-heart hippies are all that stands between your family and cheap Alaskan gas. Any solution to our energy crisis that involves more oil, or better technology to find more oil, can only be considered a stopgap measure.
    • MmmPi, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3The reason they say to use up foreign oil first is so that the prices skyrocket and when it come time to sell domestic oil domestically they get the best price.
      Dirty business, but true.
    • truthhurts28, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0I dont have an exact figure but as oil comes in from overseas, a lot of it goes to reserves which i am sure we are paying for that with every gallon we buy. and i am sure that when we dip into the reserves we will pay double of what will be the norm.
  • brstilson, on 04/28/2008, -1/+19There is a plant in Carthage, MO that is turning turkey offal from the Butterball plant nearby into $25-a-barrel oil. It amazed me how thermal depolymerization isn't getting more attention or funding.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerizat ...
    • breckinshire, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3I looked into this a few months ago, and apparently they are doing brisk business in Europe because there are laws in place that don't allow farmers to feed animal parts to other animals. These farmers then have all this animal waste to get rid of, which the thermal depolymerization folks are more than happy to take off their hands for conversion into oil.
      • brstilson, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3The great thing about it is the possibility lies with more that just animal waste. Plastic bottles, paper, and old tires look promising as well.
        • 1charmedlife, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3But QUICK - somebody get those CORN farmers some subsidies!!! How crazy.
          Can't we reform subsidies to tie them to net profits? That way if a company or farmer is having a great year, they don't get, nor need, any subsidies... bad years, they could get some help...
          • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2i still want to know why all foods containing high fructose corn syrup arent skyrocketing in price? sounds like the price constraints on everything due to the ethanol thing are *****.
    • AndreiOttawa, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3It sounds great! This might be one of the solutions. However, I doubt that US has enough of biomass waste to produce a significant amount of biofuel. Converting waste into oil is really great. But in addition to that we need another source of energy.
  • jab9990, on 04/28/2008, -10/+11Why do these paid liars get so much attention? George Bush's psychotic foreign policy, devaluation of the dollar, and destruction of the U.S. job market are the reason we have high oil prices. Once that artificial influence is gone, the price of oil will go back down to where it would be right now without that corrupt monster screwing up the world.
    • CiXeL, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4the moron republicans are digging you down (or are they paid cronys? one can't tell these days)
      but you're right and there are ALOT of people right now who agree with you regardless of how many diggs you have.
  • KaivenTor, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7And our oil reserves continue to be the biggest in our history...
    You know, I have to ask if we're using the money from Iraqi oil sales for the Iraqi people or are we going to start buying that stuff on the cheap and tell OPEC to **** off.
    • XFARB6, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Why do you think we are in Iraq in the first place? Do you really think we would give a rat's ass what happened there if it was not sitting on 10-15 percent of the world's reserves?
      • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1We did not go to Iraq to take their oil. We went to take their oil off the market, so prices would go up.
  • funkdr, on 04/28/2008, -4/+4why would gas prices go down - aren't we running out of our supply?
  • BannedTwice, on 04/28/2008, -4/+11Gas prices are not the effect of supply / demand (yet) it's the failure of the American currency.
    • aminorking, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4Yes good work, supply and demand is not how prices are determined in the market. All the economic theory that I have learnt over the past year of school is wrong, and I had better relearn your economic theory in 3 weeks so that I don't fail my summer exams.
      Demand and Supply is exactly what effects price of gas(please note that I dont get the whole gas thing, you buy it as a liquid, and it is called petrol) the fact that oil is priced in USD means that the cost of supply in real terms increases, shifting the supply curve left(economic theory, look it up) causing and extension along the demand curve, increasing prices.
      Try being clever next time, ty
      • aladrin, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2It is called 'gasoline' and thus 'gas'.
        • aminorking, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Ty, sometimes you just forget what it was shortened from. People do it with my name, grrr
      • MmmPi, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Gas is a shortened version of gasoline. Petrol is actually a shortened version of petroleum which includes many other things other than gas.
        You really should consider taking a class in international commerce as that would give you the ability to learn about trade. If you buy something from a foreign country the economic fortitude of both nations effects real prices. I country that is doing well always has the option to limit trade with a country doing not as well. A country in desperate need of a limited resource, lets say oh I don't know...Oil, will always pay a premium from countries that have plenty, don't need anything from a the desperate country and are ridiculously rich already.
        I didn't really think your post was all that clever either, I think your a a$$hole that likes to attack people on the internet, because you feel small and unimportant. Sad-really ;(
      • Heem, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Stop being an idiot. If oil is purchased in Euros (it is.) and the value of the dollar falls from 70% of a Euro to 50% of a Euro, then its just simple economics to realize that it's going to cost more US Dollars to purchase the same product, in Euros.

        And yes, Oil used to be bought in US dollars.. Until Hussein decided to change that fact. Why do you think we went to war in the first place? Don't tell me you actually believe it's about "terror".

        Look it all up.
        • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2It is also why we are barking up the Iranian tree. It ain't terrorists. The Bush crime family is scared of the Euro, not Muslims.
  • starfire039, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3I hope the UK gets a price drop in fuel at some point. Over here it's over $10 a gallon.....
    • smergs, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1Do you really measure by the gallon? And what is that in Euros?
    • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Ha, fail. DO the math. Your high prices are from Taxes. Nothing else. Tell your politicans to stop raping you at the pump.

      Not to mention you live on a little tiny island with plenty of public transportation.
  • IxXxIRhinoIxXxI, on 04/28/2008, -0/+8at the rate that Gas prices are going up, I feel like in 10 years, gas will already be around 10$ a gallon. so the "lower" gas prices won't actually be low, they will just likely be enough to stop people from complaining. but...eventually, people will get over it, and realize.... hey...I need to get here... I need gas money.... I guess I just won't impulse buy anything for a bit and save that money towards gas. OR we could all ride bicycles and invest all our money in safer road bikes and roads for the bikers.... a 13 mile trip to work in a car is about 15 minutes, on a road bike its about a half hour(and you don't have to worry about parking/rush hour)... we could use the exercise anyway....
    • PopcornDave, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Which works until you have to bring a truckload of something in to your local supermarket. The shipping industry is hit as much if not more when the price of gas goes up, so they pass their costs on to the receiver, who in turn passes their cost increases on to the consumer.
    • rockefeller2, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I think it's a little much to expect the average person to maintain a 26mph pace on a road bike commuting to work.
  • pell, on 04/28/2008, -5/+2How can they predict it unless its a planned thing. Time to ask for a raise i guess hah!
  • polish97, on 04/28/2008, -1/+310 years, just enough time to build factories and research renewable energy sources, then drop the price of oil and show that we don't need them.

    Everyone who invested in the new energy industry will say their idea is best and everyone should invest in their idea before it's too late, forsaking their own for greater good. However, everybody stays with their own ideas. Good-bye new industries...

    The oil industry(read countries with nationalized oil) recaptures 95% of the world, at $3.00/gal for, say, five years then repeats cycle as we land at $10/gal in 2035.

    Staying with new ideas is harder than it sounds.
  • munen123, on 04/28/2008, -3/+5hydrogen cars are ***** feed to us by the oil companies. I know they work but have you ever noticed that the only people really pushing it are the oil companies? bush gets a hardon talking about hydrogen cars. its to string us along untill they cant squeeze anymore money out of the world.
    • crodragn, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Hydrogen cars are just a way of shifting the energy load to the national grid, rather than having it produced and consumed onboard the car itself. Hydrogen must still be produced, a process that takes slightly more energy than is used by the car. Hydrogen is simply one of the furthest along technologies that support this kind of grid shift. Flywheels and super efficient batteries are another couple options. The advantage to performing this shift is that it is far easier to take advantage of economies of scale on the national grid as opposed to onboard the car, and it centralizes the power production so if some new technology comes along it is far easier and cheaper to upgrade the energy base in the future.
    • gotrootdude, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0I agree with munen123. The way to go isn't hydrogen. It's a combination. Use a small on-board natural gas generator, along with solar (if desired) to charge batteries. Lighten the car, and use hub motors for propulsion. Throw out the A/C in favor of peltier cooled/heated seats. Use LED lighting and energy efficient radios and software to run the engines and generator when needed. Put in a pedal system for heavy traffic areas. Throw out the huge transmission. Move the side mirrors inside, revamp the aerodynamics with wheel covers, closed grills, smoother curves, vortex generators. Make the car narrow and long, instead of fat. Make the saved road space accessible to cyclists.
      Refill natural gas tanks as needed from a home methane digester and compressor.
      It's time our garbage became useful.
      Later, we can convert cars to Di Petro air engines. : )
  • cadmiumpaint, on 04/28/2008, -0/+810 years is a great number that Politicians love. Its close enough to give people hope, but far enough away that they can't take the blame when it doesn't come true.

    Gas will go up. There is too much demand and too little supply. My next car will be a hybrid or a clean diesel.

    We really need to address the issue of traffic congestion. There are just too many damn cars on the road.
    • truthhurts28, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1You are correct. Politicians are making all these promises, but in reality, there is nothing they can do.
      My next will be a diesel to combat the daily 3 hr. drive back and forth from work. Diesel cars will be coming more readily available in the near future.
      • CedEx, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0The problem I see with diesel is that despite their fuel efficiency, the price of diesel which in many places has now become more expensive than regular will take away any efficiency they may provide.
        • cadmiumpaint, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I dunno about that. If Diesel is even $1 more per gallon, you get 100% more miles out of a full tank so I think its pretty good.
    • SpudgeBoy, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1You are correct.

      Plan = 10 years

      Two presidential terms = 8 years
  • KhanneaNL, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Riiiiight.
  • mooseontheloose, on 04/28/2008, -0/+7What were the experts saying 10 years ago about gas?

    It's all conjecture and *****.
  • TwoLOUD, on 04/28/2008, -4/+6***** the government...
  • steven1969, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1Nobody can see 10 years in the future. I agree Cadmiumpaint who says, "10 years is a great number that Politicians love."

    Think about interest rates. When they went up from 2004-2007, everybody said the age of low interest rates is over for the foreseeable future. And look where they are today....
  • amoro99, on 04/28/2008, -5/+5Put the national speed limit back down to 55. That will reduce demand (because everyone's mpg increases) which will bring down gas prices. Of course, this is so politically unpopular no candidate would touch it.
  • rdtreefrog, on 04/28/2008, -5/+3Demand is causing the rise in gas prices, and we accuse developing nations of being the major drain? Whats the MPG on a tank, or an army helicopter or a b1 bomber or jet fighter. How many of those do we now have in active duty?
    • Hetman, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3Yea because China does not have an army, with tanks, jets, bombers and helicopters.
      • bbqsalad, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1they are not in iraq killing people all day long with them... with no real reason.
  • fani, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4One thing such economics has taught me is : Once these things do go up, they NEVER come down to previous averages.
    eg. GWB Bridge in NYC was built like 80 years ago, we're still paying like $6 toll even today. Same with Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel etc. Transportation costs, everything just goes up, nothing ever comes down. EVER.
    The Govt. likes the additional income once they get it to create more useless depts or keep stupid projects going.
    Why would they ever let this go ?

    Same for gas prices.
    • Hetman, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Bridges and tunnels require upkeep to keep them safe. So the more usage the more wear and tear. The more wear and tear the more they have to charge you to use them. It sux.
      • fani, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Although your point is valid, how come some bridges don't have tolls both in NYC and around the country ?
  • lnxfi, on 04/28/2008, -0/+10I just paid $43.08 for what used to cost me $9.48 about 6 years ago. :(
    • dinki, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2I guess you had it pretty good back then and didn't know it. We all did. Now prices are sky high. Unfortunately this cycle repeats itself every so often. Eventually prices will go down, but it probably won't be for a long time.

      If we (USA) can ever get more refining capabilities and lift some of the domestic drilling restrictions, then we can lessen our dependence on OPEC.
    • robbob, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1...and it lasts about a week, increasing the monthly budget $145. OUCH!
  • thedrue, on 04/28/2008, -6/+5Perhaps oil companies have gotten too big and there is no competition anymore... When people criticize Bush about going into the middle east just so he could get the oil, I say bring it on!
    • bbqsalad, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2yeah! kill thousand of US troops and innocent Iraqis just so we can drive our suv's and fuel the vehicles used to kill! People like you make America look like *****.
  • kenedamick, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2That's fine - it's been about 3 days since I bought my first motorcycle and I'm about a year or so away from buying my first electric car.
  • ddissent, on 04/28/2008, -11/+0jab9990 why don't you go stick your stupid ***** head up your sorry ass ... Are you REALLY THAT retarded??? Blaming oil prices on a current administration is like me blaming your Mom for giving me the clap ..... Oops ..... Don't blame the middle east who controls the bulk amount of oil or anything ... NOOOO that wouldn't be cool and you wouldn't be able to stay on your pathetic Bush bashing bandwagon you pathetic Che Guevara t-shirt wearing FAG! Good GOD and I didn't even vote for the *****!
    Renewable clean energy - awesome. Until we're at that point, tell the greenie weenie environmentalist dickholes to kiss our asses ... and let's go get the oil we have under out feet! We have TONS of it.
    yea yea .. I know ... trailer trash, neanderthal, foul mouth .. Blaa Blaa Blaa .. I've been called it all before. ***** You!
  • chrisking1981, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2Haha you lucky guys we pay here 1.60 euros a liter which is $2.50 so be happy with your gas prices ;)
    • silikon2, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3American gas is priced in $ per gallon, which is 3.79 liters, so it sounds like you are paying 6 euros for a gallon = $9.48, or still two to three times what Americans pay.
      • silikon2, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1You know I think I misread your comment, sorry.
  • SOS84, on 04/28/2008, -1/+5How about congress grows a pair and holds the energy industry to the same standard as every other sector. What I mean by that is eliminate the price gouging. If you take a look at the price you pay at the pump, right now, approximately .40 a gallon is reserves for short term fluctuations in the oil market. These are the influences of day to day trading. Another .70 are reserved for long term market instability (e.g. the Iraq war and Bush's dick waving context with Chavez) and these estimates or fairly conservative. Yes gas prices are rising, but over $1.00 in the price of every gallon is result of market instability. This, by definition is price gouging. It is as simple as that.
  • FutueTeIpsum, on 04/28/2008, -2/+5I found this in a local newspaper comments section:
    ---------------------
    I worked up to a few years ago as a consultant for multiple oil companies.

    Even though part of the increase in fuel cost had to do with the weak dollar the largest increase had to do with several strategic planned cost savings that in the oil field not only make it cheaper to produce oil but it increases the barrel price at the same time due to the demand not slowing down.

    These plans has been going around for about 8 years now so being aware of this I had time to get prepared, I changed both of the cars in my household to fuel efficient vehicles, my house is now very cheap in electricity, I was aware of this so I took the necessary steps to adapt to the rising fuel cost we are now seeing

    The way it was planned, it is perfect because what will happen next is that for example the price will increase to... lets say $3.90 to $4.10, but then lowered very fast to around $3.40 to $3.60 and the consumers will see it as a bargain even though the prices before this increases where under $3.00.

    Even though it is not illegal for OPEC to make this changes, OPEC has to be able to make their consumers (Meaning us) thinking that we are still getting a bargain in fuel to keep the demand going.

    If consumers where aware of how the OPEC is controlling the price of fuel and these consumers would prepare for these changes, the demand and the cost of fuel would go down.

    Its a perfect plan, and as you can see... it works so why would OPEN not do it? They already are...


    • eryximachus, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2It's called variable pricing. Your grocery store does this all the time.

      This is hardly news.
  • NeonFire, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Gas prices are at $1.32/litre here now... crazy.
  • calipan, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3Who says hydrogen, or boifuel would be any cheaper than gasoline. I mean seriously, if I just spent billions on R&D developing a new type of fuel source do you think I would sell it for a fraction of what gas is priced at? What I would do it put it at enough of a discount to get people to convert but not so much that I can't turn a profit. At $4.00/gal for gas I would charge $3.75 for the equivalent in hydrogen or biofuel. Then when i get most of the marketshare? I run prices up. I mena seriously what are you going to do, go running back to oil??!?!? Bwhaahahahaahhaa!!!!
    • mojo31979, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0Because supposedly these new "Bio-fuels" and hybrids that are being researched give you more bang for your buck. So, while prices may not change, the amount of fuel our vehicles consume will. So instead of getting 30MPG we could get 50MPG for the same price. Or whatever it may be, who really knows! What's going to suck is having to purchase a new "Green" Vehicle to make use of this new fuel source. I guess all we can do is wait and see.
    • themonkman, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Calipan, when your producing hydrogen year around from either electricity generated from solar or wind, or even by creating hydrogen from bacteria or certain types of algae, it's not that hard to drive a good profit margin that is way below the cost of crude.


  • MrSlumberjack, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.oit.edu/portland/res
    Join me.
    It will be an accredited engineering program by the end of this summer.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.