What can we do to bring the gas price down?

While I may have used the term tree huggers, it is the evironmentalist that have gotten the government to enact such strict regulations about where and how and why a refinery can be built, that the oil companies haven't built one in years if not decades. Build just 2 more refineries to allow the increased production of crude oil products (not just gas) and things would be much better off. As you say people haven't really changed their driving habits, but when people are about to loose their house because money they would normally spend on their mortgage is now going into their gas tanks to be able to get and forth to work, that has nothing to do with their driving habits. You on the other hand continueing to use the RV (unless it is your line of work that requires it) has a lot to do with driving habits.

And your quote from Mark Twain about the weather is like comparing apples to oranges. In that we can change the price of gas while the weather is out of our hands.


Craig

 

A number of scientist would argue that our dependence on petroleum gas is directly impacting the weather.

 

Craig,
No doubt there are those whose choices are pay for gasoline to drive to work or find a jon closer to home. For them, the lack of urban planning and mass transit is a stain on the elected leader who have never looked far enough ahead to plan and implement some mass transit capability. Yes, for those folks, I do sympathize.

Yet, do these people also not deserve clean air to breath? Your tree hugger presumption makes it sound as if the tree huggers are the only ones who benefit from the antipollution stance they hold. I submit that the stance for reduced emissions and pollution in the form of cleaner refinery plants is a benefit to all of us.

This morning, as I went into school, I counted 60 vehicles sitting in the car pool line, with engines running. The line didn't move for about 15 minutes. Afternoon pickup is even worse. It's not unusual for a line of 75 or more vehicles to form an hour ahead of dismissal, with engines running at idle for an hour. And most of the vehicles are picking up one child, some two, few 3 or more.

Judging by the carpool line, gasoline has not gotten sufficiently expensive to change the idling habits of these drivers.

I do appreciate your stance, and look forward to your view.

 

A number of noted scientists would also note that we are in a global warming period, while other noted scientists counter that with we are in a cooling period as evidenced by that fact that Antartica's ice has gotten increasing thicker over the last few years.

Which is right?

Craig

 

I agree with that 100%, but when your budget had been 2 tanks of gas a week totalling $100 / mo ($2/gal) and it goes to $150 /mo @ $4/gal you still have to adjust your budget. Obama's commercial about Windfall Profit tax on Exxon making $40 million drives me crazy. What is the profit margin, not pure dollar figures.

 

And a number of scientist would disagree with those scientist. As an engineer I just don't beleive in human casued global warming.

 

H6,


While I do understand you point of view about the mass transit, and the needless waste while sitting in the "carpool line" at school. I pose this question, does mass transit fit in every situation? Would mass transit be an advantage to everyone? Why do so many people sit in the "carpool line"? Is it because their child is too good to ride the bus? Is it because no one has organized a "kiddie taxi" service that would pick-up and drop off kids at school, daycare, or sporting events?


As to the cleaner refineries, how do we go about building a cleaner refinery when we can't even build a new one? Do you shut one of the current refineries that is operating at or almost at 100% capacity down to do upgrades to make it cleaner or do you build a new one to fill in the gap while you are doing upgrades to the older refineries?

Instead of the government subsidising our farmers to grow corn for ethanol production (ineffecient method), why not offer the oil companies larger incentives to move forward in the production and mass marketing of cleaner fuels, such as the hydrogen fuel cells, more effecient alternatives to corn produced ethanol, or even lean on the auto makers to step off some of their locked away techonology that allows 50+ mpg.

As someone else mentioned the auto racing could be curtailed, however I'd submit that the auto racing industry as a whole has actually helped to make vehicles more fuel effecient, when you look back to the early 70's and cars had 350+ hp and got a massive 8 mpg. Today cars are climbing back up to those lofty heights of horsepower, while being able to get 15-20 mpg or more. Due to the auto racing industry, lighter materials are being used which in turn makes vehicles more effecient.


Craig

 

And now oil has topped $117 a barrel this morning. :?

 

You may want to check your source a little closer as the Antarctic has seen an overall loss of ice. It sounds like you may have been given a small portion of the information out of the general context in an attempt to confuse the issue.

 

Filled up yesterday before I came back home - $3.45/gal :boxing:

 

I like your source.

 

I say we dominate the world and take that shizzle!!

 

I did not give one, but if you wish ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302753_pf.html

The new Antarctic ice findings are based on mapping of 85 percent of the continent over the past decade using radar data from European, Japanese and Canadian weather satellites. Previous studies had detected the beginning of ice loss in West Antarctica and substantial loss along the peninsula, but the current research found significantly greater changes.

Rignot and his team found that East Antarctica, which holds a majority of the continent's ice, has not experienced the same kind of loss -- probably because most of the ice sits atop land rather than below sea level, as in the west. In several coastal areas of East Antarctica, however, small but similar losses have been detected, he said.

In all, snowfall and ice loss in East Antarctica have about equaled out over the past 10 years, leaving that part of the continent unchanged in terms of total ice. But in West Antarctica, the ice loss has increased by 59 percent over the past decade to about 132 billion metric tons a year, while the yearly loss along the peninsula has increased by 140 percent to 60 billion metric tons. Because the ice being lost is generally near the bottom of glaciers, the glacier moves faster into the water and thins further, as a result. Rignot said there has been evidence of ice loss going back as far as 40 years.

The new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate and glaciers are in retreat across the planet. At a recent annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Ohio State University professor Lonnie Thompson delivered a keynote lecture that described a significant speed-up in the melting of high-altitude glaciers in tropical regions, including Peru, Tibet and Mount Kilimanjaro in Kenya.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/25/antarctic.ice/

 

What does this have to do with Gas Prices?

 

They were talking earlier about snow or ice ... it's up there somewhere. I'm just 2 lazy to *quote* :?

 

Your turn... Source?

 

Ohh Just a long tangent

 

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/sea_ice.html


http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet


Does this help? I know they are all longer term studies than the one Wayne posted a link to, they also take into account the whole of the antarctic ice area and not just 85% of the antarctic continent as stated in his post.

Also in the wikipeda article it states that based on NASA research over a 21 year span (1979 to 1999) the amount of sea ice ratio is 2:1 (increasing:decreasing).


Craig

 

I do like how the article starts out saying (in so many words) that the increase in sea ice is due to global warming.
"A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean."

Unfortunately Wikipedia is not yet an acceptable reference source to most people. A helpful hint is to not use Wikipedia directly, but citer the same source(s) that the author of the Wikipedia article uses.

Ok, Wayne Stollings, rebuttal?

 

I actually posted the wikipedia link, as wikipedia has a knack of using easier to understand words and terms, and usually cuts strait to the chase while providing links to the articles combed for compilation at the end. If someone were to actually choose not to believe wikipedia then have but to scroll to the bottom of the article for the direct links.


Craig