News: Local businesses brace for $3-a-gallon gasoline

bholcomb said:
Isn't E-85 made from Corn not sugar?

Ethanol which is the 85 in E-85 can be made from a number of products... Corn, Sugar etc...

Another great option which is better for our wallets, but worse for environment is Bio deisel... which technically with a conversion kit on your F-150 diesel, you could pull up to McDonalds and fill your tank with used fry oil. Your car might gain some weight though ;) *** Edited 4/20/2006 8:07:25 PM UTC by Coastern3rd***

Here is an Idea that some of us at work thought about....Doing a Car Pool with Friends!! At least that is what we are doing this year....That way you don't have to fill up 3 cars....Just one.

E-85 isn't really a solution. E-85 and BioDiesel are both options that can make a difference for people who can take advantage of them, but neither is practical on the scale at which America drives. There just isn't enough farmland to produce that much ethanol.

My understanding is that many, if not most, of the vehicles built by the Big Five in the past 5 years, maybe longer, are flex-fuel and can run on E85. I don't know that for certain, although I do know that my '94 doesn't particularly want ethanol. Oh, and if you've been following the gasoline news lately, then you know by now that there is another problem with ethanol: it is hydroscopic...that is, it can absorb water, which doesn't burn too well.

Short term, there really aren't any good answers. We do need someone to knock some sense into the commodities market, but as I noted earlier, until the oil glut unexpectedly appears and sends prices into a tailspin, it isn't going to happen.

Long term, the most viable alternative fuel even for internal combustion engines is probably hydrogen, but because of the costs of production we aren't going to see that as a viable alternative for transportation fuel until we get a whole lot of nuclear power plants brought on line. And we're not going to see that happen until we get past an awful lot of fears about waste, safety, and weapons proliferation (which, I should remind you, is what the whole argument with Iran is all about).

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Hooper said:
For example the I-280 exit in toledo on the Turnpike. That is always 20-30 cents cheaper then here.

Those truck stops in that area always seem to be 20-30 cents cheper than anywhere else. I'm about 30 minutes from there, and there's been times I'll drive all the way across town because they're 50-60 cents cheaper than anyone else. I suspect they're selling for a loss and luring people to eat at their restraunts, kind of like the grocery store gas chains do.

Also, don't forget that Exxon-Mobile knocked Wal-Mart out of the #1 spot for highest proffits in 2005. Don't let them kid you, they know they're screwing you royal, they just realize they can get away with it.

Here is my two cents. I drive a Ranger 4.0 liter. It takes me one tank of gas to get there and back from eastpointe (10 min N of Det.), which costs me roughly 46$ right now. My view is that if you cant afford an extra tank or two of gas per month then you need to reexamine the vehicle you drive vs. your income.

Costern3rd I know of the benifits of BioDiesel what are the enviromental disadvantages you speak of.

Last time i checked into BioDiesel it seemed to be the key. You can purchase a do it yourself setup for about 2,000$. After that start up fee it would cost you about .70$ a gallon to produce. That is based on a 50 gallon batch, Which requires about 8 gallons of ethanol ( not sure of current market price) a can of red devil lye avail. at hardware store for about 3.00 and about 50 gallons of used vegtable oil (deep fry oil) which most restaurants need to pay to have removed and im sure would have no problem letting you take it free of charge.

looks like its time to buy a diesel truck or a Jetta TDI (600 miles to one tank!!)

I don't want to get into a political debate, but in his State of the Union address, the President mentioned very clearly his desire to get the country off the hook of mideast oil dependency. Unfortunately, this problem has been building up for a number of years through many different administations and though I can't particulary say I am 100% happy with the President in his handling of the situation, it is not his fault.

The oil shock of the 1970's should have been enough to get our nation moving and actually get some solutions to problems. However, when the oil embargo on the United States ended, everyone forgot about the bad times and therefore no problems were solved.

Unfortunately, it isn't possible to use diplomacy with the Iranian President. Someone who has said Israel has no right to exist and has promised to send suicide bombers to the US if we take action against them is not a sane person who can be dealt with.

Also, ethanol is at top production levels right now and over the past year, the price on that has shot up as well. For the time being, we are stuck. Not enough oil, not enough ethanol, and those in control making the big bucks off us and our trips to cp.

Did you know the discovery of oil and it's usefulness happened before Christ was born? I didn't.

Google it, you'll see.

MrScott

I read a report somewhere saying that Exxon made like 1B in profit just last month alone.

Unlike the other person, I say boycott em. When they start to hurt the price will fall, of course with all that stockpiled cash that could be around 2015.

Saw on the news today that the gas carriers, the truckers who ship the gas to the stations are losing money cause gas is too high. Now it's just reached ridiculous.

I even wrote my congressman about it, no surprise there's been no response. So I wrote him back asking how big the oil campaign donation (bribe) was, haven't heard about that either.

Dutchman said:
Didn't I hear somewhere that an oil company exec got a $500 million bonus this year?

$400 million, after receiving an annual salary topping $50 million... plus bonuses... plus stock. But who's counting, right? ;)

ExxonMobile posted record profits for 2005, over 30% of which was accrued in the 4th quarter - when we were supposedly experiencing such a massive shortage due to Kartina. Funny, huh? And, yeah, they are now the largest company in the World, but that's not too surprising, given this nation's thirst. Some strange things about Exxon is that their cost for crude oil rose 34% from 2004 to 2005, while their profits increased by 75% over that period. Of course, some of this is also attributable to the 72% rise in their cost (note theirs, not ours - though our did certainly rise) for natural gas.

Fun fact of the day: ExxonMobile's 2005 revenue surpassed Saudia Arabia's 2005 GDP. Yeah, you read that right.

While GWBush isn't to blame for the high cost of gasoline, he and our administration are certainly to blame for apathy. They have a conference every once in a while, say a few buzz words so we know that they're "working on a solution". The thing is, why on Earth would we expect Cheney & Co. to want to make less money through legislating against themselves?

This problem has been in the making for quite a while, and it is everyone's fault, but none moreso than the Bush administration. We have a chance to take a serious look at our use of energy and devise a solution. If we can spend the money to get to the moon, we can certainly afford some research into cleaner energy. The problem is, war is far more profitable (in the short term, anyway) than research.

Hydrogen fuel cells are just not a realistic solution. The energy required to isolate hydrogen from water is just too great for it to be pratical, given our current methods. Hybrids are a step in the right direction, but have a LONG way to go yet. Nuclear energy? *rolls eyes* Don't we have enough toxic pollution as it is? Nuclear energy may look nice and neat on the surface, but the waste problem is unavoidable and FAR worse than fossil pollution.

I'm actually glad this administration has stockpiled our reserves - this is easily the most intelligent thing they've done in 6 six years. When (and I'm talking very long-term here) the supply does begin to dwindle, its only realistic to assume that prices will explode is a way that'll make this time in history look laughable, and we'll still likely have a fairly considerable dependence on it, in one form or another. Having an immense reserve will be our saving grace. Even if demand dies before the supply (I know, I know...), then we'll just be able to tap into our reserves and enjoy $0.15/gallon gas... in 2135... when we don't have gasoline engines anymore.

*phew* Okay, sorry about that, but I do feel much better now...

/rant

I'll just wait until I can get my DeLorean retrofitted with a Mr. Fusion. That'll solve all my problems.

There ya go - a couple of banana peels, some coffee grounds, and leftover beer from a can, and you're on your way!

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads."

RideMan said:
E-85 isn't really a solution. E-85 and BioDiesel are both options that can make a difference for people who can take advantage of them, but neither is practical on the scale at which America drives. There just isn't enough farmland to produce that much ethanol.

Which is what we need, a temporary fix until such time that we can get hydrogen and advanced electrical vehicles out there.

FACT: Hybrids, while they are a step in the right direction are worse for the environment. This is mostly due to the fact that they use more fuel to be produced, and then burn straight gasoline. What this means: A Toyota Prius will use more fuel in it's lifetime then a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe in its lifetime.

My understanding is that many, if not most, of the vehicles built by the Big Five in the past 5 years, maybe longer, are flex-fuel and can run on E85. I don't know that for certain, although I do know that my '94 doesn't particularly want ethanol. Oh, and if you've been following the gasoline news lately, then you know by now that there is another problem with ethanol: it is hydroscopic...that is, it can absorb water, which doesn't burn too well.

Sort of... Anything that is combustible will technically run your engine, hence, your understanding. However, run E-85 through any engine not designed for E-85 (new or old) and your seals will break down and leak coolant and oil into your combustion chamber. Ethanol will eat at and corrode your seals.. your engine will burn up and sieze before you use up a half tank.

Ethanol is Hydroscopic. But don't think that the engineers at the big 3 (there is no Big 5 in my eyes) did not think about this issue.. Your engine is sealed (or should be) tighter than a coffin. Couple that with a properly installed pump and storage facility for E-85 and you should not have to worry about water in your gas tank.

Any water in any engine regardlerss of fuel is bad news, however there is nothing more to worry about with E-85 than you would with a typical combustion engine.

Short term, there really aren't any good answers. We do need someone to knock some sense into the commodities market, but as I noted earlier, until the oil glut unexpectedly appears and sends prices into a tailspin, it isn't going to happen.

Short term there are plenty of good answers for our wallet, but not for the environment. VW's TDI is excellent, however it's diesel and diesel never really burns clean. Hybrids as I explained earlier use more fuel than a full size Tahoe making it not very friendly for the environment and the Problem with E-85 as Dave said is there is not enough and it's already in short supply.

Long term, the most viable alternative fuel even for internal combustion engines is probably hydrogen, but because of the costs of production we aren't going to see that as a viable alternative for transportation fuel until we get a whole lot of nuclear power plants brought on line. And we're not going to see that happen until we get past an awful lot of fears about waste, safety, and weapons proliferation (which, I should remind you, is what the whole argument with Iran is all about).

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Hydrogen is much closer than we think. GM, DCX and Ford all have hydrogen vehicles that run very well with very little bugs in the system.

One of the only things I can applaud the president for is his push for more nuclear power plants. Which is putting us on the fast track to Hydrogen. *** Edited 4/21/2006 1:02:37 PM UTC by Coastern3rd***

Coastern3rd said:

One of the only things I can applaud the president for is his push for more nuclear power plants. Which is putting us on the fast track to Hydrogen. *** Edited 4/21/2006 1:02:37 PM UTC by Coastern3rd***

Well said, except for this part. Given your obvious understanding of many things in this area, why do you applaud the use of nuclear energy?
*** Edited 4/21/2006 1:18:25 PM UTC by djDaemon***

Nuclear isn't really a bad option. Yes nuclear waste is bad, however, the amount of waste created by a nuclear plant compared to its power output is WAY below that of a coal or natural gas fired plant.
Obviously wind or water power would be a great idea, however there are very few places that have a sustained wind or a river that can be dammed. Not to mention you'll get the building of a new nuke plant past the environmentalists before you get a hydro-electric dam built.

Coastern3rd said:

VW's TDI is excellent, however it's diesel and diesel never really burns clean.

VW's TDI is a great engine. The latest generation TDI is only available in Europe at this time, because it uses low sulfur diesel fuel. Something that isn't available in the U.S. yet, but should have been a long time ago. As a result, 2006 will be the last model year for the TDI in the U.S. The newest TDI's easily meet 2007 emission standards, but they won't be available in the U.S. until low sulfur fuel is universal here. The oil companies have been stalling on this issue for a number of years now.

Dj,

Pretty much what Jugga said. While I cannot really justify nuclear waste. I do feel that the efficiency of nuclear power outweighs the waste factor... And as Dave said it puts us on the fast track to Hydrogen powered vehicles.

I'm obviously not on Bush's bandwagon, but his push for nuclear power and his views on the space program have made me prtty happy with what he has to say.

Imagine a Hydrogen powered Mustang or Camaro... An 800 Hp vehicle with the efficiency of a 4 cyl 125hp engine.

And as you probably have guessed. Speed coupled with efficiency really gets my blood running...

I need to add something here..

I want to applaud everyones responses for keeping this topic, on-topic and minding their P's and Q's with their responses...

This is probably one of the best semi-controversial issues I have seen talked about on point buzz that manages to be kept in line by the people discussing it.

By the way, I paid $3.01 in northern Indiana yesterday for a gallon of gas. *** Edited 4/21/2006 1:44:08 PM UTC by Coastern3rd***

Yup - $2.90 'round here at 5:30 this morning. :(

I would love for a new & improved method of hydrogen extraction to be discovered. Talk about good energy!

As for the nuclear thing. I've always felt that nuclear waste is a pretty bad option, given the fact that it will last for (relatively) eternity, whereas fossil fuel damage is somewhat repairable - though over a long time frame and only by Mommy Nature. I wouldn't however, mind nuclear energy use for a VERY short amount of time. But that's the rub, isn't it? When have we as a nation ever been able to conserve energy? My biggest fear would be the overuse of nuclear energy, which would permanently destroy this planet.

I got lucky the other day at under 3 bucks. Probably the last time that will happen.

I remember seeing something that there were actually hydrogen refueling stations in the DC area, and that GM was test piloting some hydrogen trucks. I may be wrong on this, but I thought that some of their fleet models were being made to run on hydrogen.

And to continue on what I said before: Nuclear waste is bad...mmmkay. However, it can be contained and stored (and maybe we can eventually send it to the sun). The pollution caused by coal/NG plants cannot be contained and stored. The best we can hope for is to filter as much crap as we can, and even that doesn't work. So, even though nuclear waste is bad, we can store it until we come up with a solution for disposal.

That is correct Jugga, GM is testing although I am not sure where... I am pretty sure it is a joint venture with DCX or Ford... Possibly both.