Have gas prices affected you?

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Nice try, tw, but no cigar:

Marichiko provided a chart that is suppose to be gasoline prices in 2005 dollars.
Chart is post #48

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index (CPI) data, a dollar in 1970 is now $5.04. That means in 2005 dollars, a gallon of gasoline in 1970 cost $1.75. According to Mari's chart, gas was suppose to cost about $1.45.

By 1979, with gas at $1.20 per gallon, gasoline was $3.40 per gallon using Commerce Department numbers. It looks like the Commerce Department has revised their conversions down from that last time I ran these numbers. According to Marichiko's chart, that price in 2005 dollars was only $2.60.

In 1979, a barrel of crude was costing $35 per bbl. In 2005 dollars, that would be $94 per barrel. Price spiked in June 1979 to $40 per bbl which would be $108 per bbl in 2005 dollars. Current oil prices have risen sharply to only $67 per barrel.

Back then, as they so often do, the Saudis worked to keep oil prices down. So when world market prices were at $35, the Saudis were selling crude at prices of between $18 and $23.50 per bbl. That is between $48.50 and $63 per barrel. Prices for crude and at the pump were significantly higher then compared to today.

In another oil crisis of 1973, gasoline jumped to about $3.25 per gallon in 2005 dollars. According to Marichiko's chart, that price in 1973 was only $1.75. I have problems with Marichiko's chart whose origin is not known. Its numbers contradict the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers.

[Cyclefrance]

Surprised there's no UK contribution so far. Thanks to our tax regime we currently are paying £0.90/US$1.62 per LITRE - as there are 3.7854 litres per US Gallon that's equivalent to $6.13 per US gallon. Needless to say I cycle a bit more!

[wolf]

:high five:

[zippyt]

in an accadent it is ALWAYS wise to chop the battery leads , DE-ENERGIZE that Mother Fucker !!!! A EMT told me that YEARS ago , and explained that if you de- energize the car it is that much less likely to catch on fire , it made sence to me .

I have done this more than I care to relate !!!!!

I filled up my work truck today , it was running on fumes , 40 gallon tank , $100 + fillup !!
Thank GOD(S) for the company gas card !!!!!!

[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by zippyt

I filled up my work truck today , it was running on fumes , 40 gallon tank , $100 + fillup !!

$100?? I'm paying equivalent of $100 every time I fill up my Audi A4 with 15 gallons here in good old Blighty (all right, I do get a bit more than 8 to the gallon - nearer 30, but it still smarts!)

[elSicomoro]

Actually, last I checked, Slang is not a fan of S&W due to their government pandering.

[Bullitt]

Saddam, did you ever read the article about the soldiers guarding you in prison in GQ magazine this past.. June or July I think? Aside from the murderous side of you, you would seem like a cool guy.

[Saddam Hussein]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Aside from the murderous side of you, you would seem like a cool guy.

Let me guess. You vote Dem.


Actually, yes. I can be a very cool guy. Without power I can be very humble and polite, yes.

Maybe we could start a write in campaign for Pres in 08. There are so many people there in the states that support or sympathize with my cause, it might be worth running as a write in.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Saddam Hussein

Let me guess. You vote Dem.


Actually, yes. I can be a very cool guy. Without power I can be very humble and polite, yes.

Maybe we could start a write in campaign for Pres in 08. There are so many people there in the states that support or sympathize with my cause, it might be worth running as a write in.

As long as we don't run Dem, I don't vote Dem

[smoothmoniker]

I love LA, I really do, but this is maybe my least favorite part. I am envious of those of you who have options.

There is no real public transit in LA. I have a metro station 1/4 mile from my house, but I've been able to use it about twice in the past year. It just doesn't go anywhere that people go.

Riding a bike isn't an option, for obvious reasons. Riding 30 miles with a Fender Rhodes bungee strapped to the back of a bike might be a great mental picture, but that's about it.

Carpooling is rarely an option. LA isn't like most urban centers, where commerce and industry are centrally located, and residences are set in outlying areas. The sprawling decentralized layout of the southland means that there is very little chance of finding someone who lives within 5 miles of you, and works within 5 miles of your work.

Compound that with the fact that property values have jumped so high, that any new freeway expansion becomes obscenely expensive just to buy the neighboring properties at market value. They are planning on expanding the 23 freeway, a small little 9 mile stretch through a residential community just west of the Valley, and the average cost of the homes that they're going to have to purchase is 1.2 million. Now add up how much 9 miles of right-of-way is going to cost. Imagine trying to expand the 101 through Woodland Hills or Studio City.

I honestly don't know what the way forward looks like for LA. The pressures keep building, to the point where the average person commutes 40 miles a day from the house she can afford to the job that pays decently, and spends 2-3 hours in the car to get there.

[Hobbs]

I just find it interesting that in this time and age of technological advances that no one can come up with a valid, inexpesive, safe, clean alternative fuel. I mean, come on, why does the fuel we need to use have to include oil as a main ingredient? We can make synthetic oil, synthetic fabrics, so is synthetic fossil fuels really a pipe dream? True, there are alternative fuels such as alcohol, CNG, propane, even electric (although this isn't really a good alternative becuause you still need to generate the electricity to put into the cars which results in putting more strain on the power generators), there's got to be better sources of fuel.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by Hobbs

I just find it interesting that in this time and age of technological advances that no one can come up with a valid, inexpesive, safe, clean alternative fuel. I mean, come on, why does the fuel we need to use have to include oil as a main ingredient?

Physics. Specifically, conservation of energy. Anything we use as fuel has to have potential energy. Synthesizing hydrocarbons is certainly possible, but it takes energy to synthesize them -- more than can be released by burning them. We've got fairly few energy sources available

1) Direct solar. Lousy for vehicles, currently very inefficient for anything else. Photovoltaic solar cells can barely produce enough energy over their lifetime to account for the energy it takes to manufacture it. Large-scale solar plants attract the ire of environmentalists.

2) Biofuels. They work, but they're available only on a vastly smaller scale than crude. And to produce more means to produce less food. Some of them (ethanol in particular) take more energy to grow and extract than released when burning, so are useless as a primary fuel.

3) Nukular. Err, nuclear. Lousy for vehicles. Politically impossible. Environmentalists hate it. And there still is that waste issue.

4) Hydro. Pretty much tapped out, not directly usable for vehicles, and environmentalists hate it.

5) Geothermal. Very few places it can be practically tapped, not directly usable for vehicles. Environmentalists hate it.

6) Geophysical, e.g. tidal powered. Again, few places it can be practically tapped, not directly usable for vehicles, and environmentalists hate it.

7) Good old fossil fuels -- conventionally, solar energy stored in prehistoric times. An alternate theory holds that oil is left over from the formation of the solar system. Environmentalists hate them too (except natural gas, sometimes), but they're too firmly established for those concerns to kill them.

If you want something else usable as a fuel, you either need to find some other common substance with a lot of potential energy stored in it chemically, or figure a way to extract power from some available source so cheaply that it makes sense to synthesize a fuel rather than use refined oil.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by russotto

Physics. Specifically, conservation of energy. Anything we use as fuel has to have potential energy. Synthesizing hydrocarbons is certainly possible, but it takes energy to synthesize them -- more than can be released by burning them. We've got fairly few energy sources available

1) Direct solar. Lousy for vehicles, currently very inefficient for anything else. Photovoltaic solar cells can barely produce enough energy over their lifetime to account for the energy it takes to manufacture it. Large-scale solar plants attract the ire of environmentalists.

2) Biofuels. They work, but they're available only on a vastly smaller scale than crude. And to produce more means to produce less food. Some of them (ethanol in particular) take more energy to grow and extract than released when burning, so are useless as a primary fuel.

3) Nukular. Err, nuclear. Lousy for vehicles. Politically impossible. Environmentalists hate it. And there still is that waste issue.

4) Hydro. Pretty much tapped out, not directly usable for vehicles, and environmentalists hate it.

5) Geothermal. Very few places it can be practically tapped, not directly usable for vehicles. Environmentalists hate it.

6) Geophysical, e.g. tidal powered. Again, few places it can be practically tapped, not directly usable for vehicles, and environmentalists hate it.

7) Good old fossil fuels -- conventionally, solar energy stored in prehistoric times. An alternate theory holds that oil is left over from the formation of the solar system. Environmentalists hate them too (except natural gas, sometimes), but they're too firmly established for those concerns to kill them.

If you want something else usable as a fuel, you either need to find some other common substance with a lot of potential energy stored in it chemically, or figure a way to extract power from some available source so cheaply that it makes sense to synthesize a fuel rather than use refined oil.

So, I gather that Environmentalists and Politicians are the primary impediment. Well we can solve that!

[dar512]

Originally Posted by grant

So, I gather that Environmentalists and Politicians are the primary impediment. Well we can solve that!

I dunno. We haven't done too well at getting rid of them so far.

[Trilby]

Currently, i can only put $4.00-$6.00 in the tank at a time. I've no stash of money anywhere and I'm counting my nickles. It's really giving me a headache.