Gas pricing

[davidc83]

It's going to seem like I am picking on you, but I am not; I promise. I think you know my nature. Would you accept the complaint from a person driving a Prius? Don't get me wrong, I get your point. If the FordEx is an affectation or some kind of displayed affluence by the owner, they may have the means to consume less fuel by changing their vehicle of choice. But their argument about the price of gas is no less valid than the person driving a Prius. For whatever reason society (globally) seems to judge on snapshots presuming an understanding of the totality of the circumstances can be absolute from just a point-in-time assessment.

LOL....I drive a Prius and the price of gas sucks. However, I bought the Prius in 2015 when gas was at almost record highs then (over $3 per gallon-close to $4 per gallon)-that is the reason I bought it when the front end went out of my 4x4 Jeep Cherokee....went from getting 19mpg to 50+ mpg at 70mph. People buying gas guzzlers, that is on them when gas prices are high...no one to blame but themselves for having to put more $$$$ in their tanks. Toyota has at least 3 models of hybrids (prius, camry, corolla) which all get very good gas mileage and are cheaper than those gas guzzling SUVs (with most SUVs only having 1-2 occupants-see it hundreds of times each day commuting). If they want to save money at the pump, they need to slow down....going 20mph over the speed limit uses at least 20% more fuel, and really doesnt save much time unless the drivers are going hundreds of miles at a time. I normally drive 800 mile days (at least once a quarter) and the difference of going 78mph on the interstate and going 74 mph on the interstate is about 3/4 of a tank (even in my little Pri), and only takes about 30 minutes more time going 74mph than 78 mph over those 800 miles.-I had rather save the 3/4 of a tank than the 30 minutes....I am just as tired either way.

 

[bigbird]

Only in the USA ,drivers will idle their engines at a Starbucks, pay $5 for a cup of coffee and then complain about $4 per gallon of gas-if they paid the same amount for their gas as their coffee, they would be paying over $32 per gallon for their gas. Same analogy for using any drive thru....idling cars waste fuel...park, shut off your car and go in and buy....or drive a hybrid (gas engine turns off at idle automatically).

Not only the USA.
Add Canada to your list.
And we have always paid more for gasoline than the US has, due only to taxes.
Today regular 87 unleaded 10% ethanol gas in Winnipeg is $1.73 CAD/litre, which is equivalent to $1.73 X 3.79 = $6.56 CAD/US gallon X 0.8 = $5.24 US/US gallon
The highest gas prices are in British Columbia, averaging $1.95 CAD/litre = $7.39 CAD/US gallon = $7.39 X 0.8 = $5.91 US/US gallon

 

[670cc]

LOL....I drive a Prius and the price of gas sucks. However, I bought the Prius in 2015 when gas was at almost record highs then (over $3 per gallon-close to $4 per gallon)-that is the reason I bought it when the front end went out of my 4x4 Jeep Cherokee....went from getting 19mpg to 50+ mpg at 70mph. People buying gas guzzlers, that is on them when gas prices are high...no one to blame but themselves for having to put more $$$$ in their tanks. Toyota has at least 3 models of hybrids (prius, camry, corolla) which all get very good gas mileage and are cheaper than those gas guzzling SUVs (with most SUVs only having 1-2 occupants-see it hundreds of times each day commuting). If they want to save money at the pump, they need to slow down....going 20mph over the speed limit uses at least 20% more fuel, and really doesnt save much time unless the drivers are going hundreds of miles at a time. I normally drive 800 mile days (at least once a quarter) and the difference of going 78mph on the interstate and going 74 mph on the interstate is about 3/4 of a tank (even in my little Pri), and only takes about 30 minutes more time going 74mph than 78 mph over those 800 miles.-I had rather save the 3/4 of a tank than the 30 minutes....I am just as tired either way.

I agree with your points. I think many people, while certainly not all, have some amount of control over how much gasoline they consume. Their choice in vehicles has an impact, and although they may not be able to instantly change vehicles today, where they’re at today might be based on vehicle buying decisions they made in the not too distant past.

Speed of highway travel makes a big difference in fuel consumption, but personally I have not witnessed much, if any, change in the speed most people drive at lately. I interpret that as people are not aware or don’t care that they are using more fuel driving fast.

I understand most people would not have my flexibility, but I have a great deal of control over how much fuel I use. In the next six months, I’d guess I have the control to triple or cut to one third (from where I am now) the amount of gasoline I might use in that time period, depending on the choices I make. I’m not complaining about today’s gas prices; I’ll just make the necessary adjustments.

 

[melensdad]

I have 2 diesel cars, both are incredibly efficient, both purchased at a time when diesel was cheaper than gas. Wise choices. Even at today's prices for diesel they are still cheaper to operate than my gas vehicles. I have a compact pick up truck, it gets nearly 22mpg, but it does what I can't do in the cars.

We live 6 miles outside of the city limits of the nearest small town. We have to drive. The fields are planted with corn/soybeans. I no longer plant them as a neighboring farmer now crops those fields so I use less fuel than I used to use, but that fuel is still being used on the same land, just by someone else.

And the fertilizer for those fields comes from natural gas. That stuff that is produced by wells and transported by pipelines. Nitrogen based commercial fertilizers require NG. Raise the costs of NG and you dramatically raise the prices of food, all the way through the food chain. From growing crops to feeding cows.

People who want fossil fuel prices to increase don't really understand all the ramifications.

 

[670cc]

And the fertilizer for those fields comes from natural gas. That stuff that is produced by wells and transported by pipelines. Nitrogen based commercial fertilizers require NG. Raise the costs of NG and you dramatically raise the prices of food.

People who want fossil fuel prices to increase don't really understand all the ramifications.

People who want to continue the use of fossil fuels at the current rate perhaps don’t really understand all the ramifications. One way to incentivize reduction in fossil fuel usage is to raise it’s price. Yes, weaning off fossil fuel is going to be very painful, but it’s that way because people and governments, despite scientific knowledge, chose to take the cheap and easy path for the last roughly 50 years. The longer humans kick the can down the road, the more painful it will be in their future.

 

[Oldbear]

People who want to continue the use of fossil fuels at the current rate perhaps don’t really understand all the ramifications. One way to incentivize reduction in fossil fuel usage is to raise it’s price. Yes, weaning off fossil fuel is going to be very painful, but it’s that way because people and governments, despite scientific knowledge, chose to take the cheap and easy path for the last roughly 50 years. The longer humans kick the can down the road, the more painful it will be in their future.

With all due respect, the whole “electric vehicle” thing at this point in time appears to be a pie in the sky approach. No one addresses (1)where does electricity come from? Yes, some is solar, some wind, and some hydro, BUT a huge amount come from the dreaded fossil fuels and/or nuclear plants, both of which are basically “verboten” in the US. (2) current electric grids barely meet current demands as noted by the occasional blackouts some ares “enjoy”, (3) current battery tech is quite dirty, both from a manufacturing AND a (future) disposal category. I had this discussion with a cousin in California a while back. She was singing the glory of electric cars while complaining about a recent power blackout. I sincerely believe that, eventually fuel cells, hydrogen, or possibly electricity will become the source of power, but given the current limits of technology we simply aren’t there yet. Trying to force a technology not ready for prime time on the public as is currently being pushed will not resolve the long term issues, especially given that those pushing this have zero influence in the largest markets in the world. The end result of our current course will more than likely be higher prices for the consumer in first world countries with zero actual result in overall worldwide pollution levels. I would love to see a truly “clean” technology emerge, but imho we simply are not there yet, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to get us there. Instead, we are going to need a massive push for a technology that will actually WORK. End of rant. I sincerely do not want to offend or hurt anyone, but we all need to think issues through. There IS no free lunch. Also, please remember the whole “ethanol” in our gas issue. That wonderful idea was to use a nice renewable fuel. Unfortunately we chose to make ours from corn and it is basically a one to one production (a gallon of diesel to plant, harvest and transport the corn, fuel to convert it to alcohol, and a gallon of ethanol on the other end. Brazil runs almost ALL neat ethanol in their vehicles, BUT they make it from sugar cane, one gallon in equals something like 5 (or perhaps seven-been a few years since I worked on this) gallons out-a significant net Gain. Here in the US its at best a break even project. Good for farmers, the actually economy not so much.

 

[MZ5]

It's moot because the consumer prefers the cheapest price at the pump which currently rules out 100% domestic sources.

You can neither know nor reasonably assert that if there is no alternative choice available.

 

[MZ5]

I love the idea of eliminating the brown cloud where I live by moving to electric vehicles. My grid electricity is mainly nuclear, which I also love.

The problem as far as I’m concerned with electrics is that they demonstrably do not reduce the amount of energy used, and they merely relocate the pollution rather than reduce it (and may change its form, which I like or dislike depending upon the details). Furthermore, so-called ‘green’ electricity sources aren’t remotely cost effective even with oil and gas prices where they are today absent the massive tax strategies to support them. That simply means we’re piling up massive debt against the hope of our future earnings, but disguising it because we run up debt rather than paying for it now (or as we go). That has good and bad attached to it, but the magnitude is so massive is cannot be ignored.

The talk of ‘weaning’ off of fossil fuels doesn’t really make sense to me, because it fails to address total energy consumed, and it comes with the explicit lie of ‘zero emissions’ (which is a lie because that only means at a vehicle’s tailpipe, not actual total pollution or emissions).

Finally, consider this:
ALL of the energy we have the slightest idea how to access is solar. ALL of it.
-Some comes from direct photovoltaic conversion.
-Some comes from wind, which is a product of solar heating of the Earth’s surface.
-Some comes from ‘fossil’ fuels, which is simply an enormously large storage vessel of previously-collected solar energy.
-Some comes from alcohols, which are a combination of solar energy stored by the plants and plant products being fermented, and a lot comes from the soil where solar energy was stored by previous plant growth).
-Some comes from nuclear power, which splits atoms manufactured by the sun or other stars in the distant past.
-Some comes from geothermal, which comes from those same elements manufactured by the sun or other stars.
-Some comes from tidal movement, which comes from the moon, but of course the moon is made up of things made by the sun or other stars. Even the orbits of the Earth and moon are because of the sun.

EVERYTHING is solar. All the rest of the discussion, or even argument, is about which form of solar energy is ‘best,’ and the balance of long-term stored solar energy vs (relatively) currently-received solar energy to use.

 

[the Ferret]

With all due respect, the whole “electric vehicle” thing at this point in time appears to be a pie in the sky approach. No one addresses (1)where does electricity come from? Yes, some is solar, some wind, and some hydro, BUT a huge amount come from the dreaded fossil fuels and/or nuclear plants, both of which are basically “verboten” in the US. (2) current electric grids barely meet current demands as noted by the occasional blackouts some ares “enjoy”, (3) current battery tech is quite dirty, both from a manufacturing AND a (future) disposal category. I had this discussion with a cousin in California a while back. She was singing the glory of electric cars while complaining about a recent power blackout. I sincerely believe that, eventually fuel cells, hydrogen, or possibly electricity will become the source of power, but given the current limits of technology we simply aren’t there yet. Trying to force a technology not ready for prime time on the public as is currently being pushed will not resolve the long term issues, especially given that those pushing this have zero influence in the largest markets in the world. The end result of our current course will more than likely be higher prices for the consumer in first world countries with zero actual result in overall worldwide pollution levels. I would love to see a truly “clean” technology emerge, but imho we simply are not there yet, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to get us there. Instead, we are going to need a massive push for a technology that will actually WORK. End of rant. I sincerely do not want to offend or hurt anyone, but we all need to think issues through. There IS no free lunch. Also, please remember the whole “ethanol” in our gas issue. That wonderful idea was to use a nice renewable fuel. Unfortunately we chose to make ours from corn and it is basically a one to one production (a gallon of diesel to plant, harvest and transport the corn, fuel to convert it to alcohol, and a gallon of ethanol on the other end. Brazil runs almost ALL neat ethanol in their vehicles, BUT they make it from sugar cane, one gallon in equals something like 5 (or perhaps seven-been a few years since I worked on this) gallons out-a significant net Gain. Here in the US its at best a break even project. Good for farmers, the actually economy not so much.

Not to mention the lack of a suitable charging station grid throughout the country that could support the 276 million vehicles currently registered in the US. (and for us motorcyclists there are the issues of range and charging times). I have an aquaintance that has a Zero Electric Bike, but he uses it for commuting to work and never really goes anyplace on it. It works great for him. Wouldn't so much for me, which is why I don't have one. That and the initial buy in cost vs a gas powered bike like an NC 750.

Have you seen the YouTube video of that guy that blows up his 2013 Tesla in Finland because they wanted $22,600 for a replacement battery for it? Wonder what he is driving today? Doubt it's another electric powered car.

I think we will still be linked to gasoline for a long, long time no matter how much they charge for a gallon of it

 

[670cc]

Electric vehicles and alternative energy sources all have their issues. In my view, a big problem is that people are often inefficient and wasteful. In my opinion there is too little focus on simply reducing energy usage. That not only includes vehicle operation, but housing heating and cooling, production and transportation of food and goods, and choice of leisure activities. People in general have little incentive to reduce their overall energy usage until it becomes a financial or availability concern. Cheap energy promotes over use and waste. Energy consumption in our current mode and scale is unsustainable as it causes irreversible environmental damage.

For the short term, I view the electric vehicle as a useful piece in the big puzzle. If I ride an ICE motorcycle, it is 100% sure I'm burning gasoline and ethanol. If I ride an electric motorcycle, I am likely using a combination of fossil fuel, bio fuel, solar, wind, nuclear powered, and other energy. In my home state, the majority of electricity is generated from nuclear power plants. Looking at the small world of my state alone, I'm riding a primarily nuclear energy powered motorcycle if I'm on the Zero. But as MZ5 suggests in a prior post, the electric vehicle does not directly reduce energy use, which brings me back to my point about the need to become less wasteful and more efficient.

I believe the best thing we can do now is become much more energy efficient, smartly use multiple varied energy sources, and greatly lessen over-consumption and the pursuit of affluence in our way of life. And, start seriously doing it right now, as we should have begun doing about 50 years ago.

 

[the Ferret]

I was doing some math the other night, and for the buy in cost of a Zero S motorcycle at approximately $15,000 VS an NC 750X at approximately $9,000. I could ride the NC750X 102,000 miles at 68 mpg with gas priced at $4.00 a gallon, before buying the Zero would be financially beneficial. Of course, I really couldn't go anywhere on the Zero since it advertises 89 miles of range in the city and 45 miles on the highway.

Zero Motorcycles

Website for Zero Motorcycles

www.zeromotorcycles.com

Heck, this summer I will be riding from Ohio to North Dakota on one trip and to Rhode Island on another trip. At this time that is just not feasible on an electric motorcycle

 

[Rabbit]

Electric vehicles and alternative energy sources all have their issues. In my view, a big problem is that people are often inefficient and wasteful. In my opinion there is too little focus on simply reducing energy usage. That not only includes vehicle operation, but housing heating and cooling, production and transportation of food and goods, and choice of leisure activities. People in general have little incentive to reduce their overall energy usage until it becomes a financial or availability concern. Cheap energy promotes waste.

For the short term, I view the electric vehicle as a useful piece in the big puzzle. If I ride an ICE motorcycle, it is 100% sure I'm burning gasoline and ethanol. If I ride an electric motorcycle, I am likely using a combination of fossil fuel, bio fuel, solar, wind, nuclear powered, and other energy. In my home state, the majority of electricity is generated from nuclear power plants. Looking at the small world of my state alone, I'm riding a primarily nuclear energy powered motorcycle if I'm on the Zero. But as MZ5 suggests, the electric vehicle does not directly reduce energy use, which brings me back to my point about becoming less wasteful and more efficient.

I believe the best thing we can do now is become much more energy efficient, smartly use multiple varied energy sources, and greatly lessen over-consumption and the pursuit of affluence in our way of life. And, start seriously doing it right now, as we should have begun doing about 50 years ago.

I hear a lot of we should do things, but what are you doing individually to reduce usage?
I put geothermal in my house, a metal roof on (recyclable and efficient) and upgraded a very inefficient glass door. If high energy prices become the norm it’s going to make it much more difficult to budget the money to continue the upgrades unless something flat out breaks. High energy prices reduce the standard of living for upper middle class and below. They aren’t going to convince the CFO of target to sell their Escalade or 400 hp fishing boat.

 

[670cc]

I was doing some math the other night, and for the buy in cost of a Zero S motorcycle at approximately $15,000 VS an NC 750X at approximately $9,000. I could ride the NC750X 102,000 miles at 68 mpg with gas priced at $4.00 a gallon, before buying the Zero would be financially beneficial. Of course, I really couldn't go anywhere on the Zero since it advertises 89 miles of range in the city and 45 miles on the highway.

Zero Motorcycles

Website for Zero Motorcycles

www.zeromotorcycles.com

Heck, this summer I will be riding from Ohio to North Dakota on one trip and to Rhode Island on another trip. At this time that is just not feasible on an electric motorcycle

In 2021, I could buy a new Zero S for a net price of $11,500, plus title and license. However, now the plug-in 2 wheel 10% federal income tax credit has expired, from what the Zero site says, but even now in 2022 I could still get a Zero S in my state for $12,846 + license and title.

I would never suggest buying an electric motorcycle to save money, but wow, it sure is a nice ride and the maintenance is so minimal. Regrets? I have none (zero).

You're right. Today it is not feasible to take other than a gasoline powered motorcycle on a long trip. Perhaps if we had started working on alternatives long ago, things would be different today.

 

[670cc]

I hear a lot of we should do things, but what are you doing individually to reduce usage?
I put geothermal in my house, a metal roof on (recyclable and efficient) and upgraded a very inefficient glass door. If high energy prices become the norm it’s going to make it much more difficult to budget the money to continue the upgrades unless something flat out breaks. High energy prices reduce the standard of living for upper middle class and below. They aren’t going to convince the CFO of target to sell their Escalade or 400 hp fishing boat.

I put geothermal in my house 18 years ago. I have a second building on the lot but I chose not to heat or cool it (when it's cold I put on more clothes). Maybe it's not out of the ordinary but we keep our winter indoor house temperature at about 64 degress to reduce heating needs. Our primary 4-wheel transportation gets 35-40 mpg, which is so-so, but the next vehicle will surely improve on that. As for consumption, I primarily repair rather than replace. One of my lawn mowers is almost 38 years old and still in use. Home appliances and utilities are all original after 18 years because I repair them myself rather than discarding and replacing them. I make things last so as to reduce consumption of new products. We try to consume little and don't even need to subscribe to a regular trash pickup service.

I do own inefficient vehicles as well. Some are very inefficient and were based on decisions I made in the more distant past. How they are used and how/if they will be replaced going forward will be based on energy usage factors.

Yes, high energy prices going forward will reduce the standard of living for most people and create hardship.

 

[melensdad]

People who want to continue the use of fossil fuels at the current rate. . .

Nobody advocated for "current rate . . . "

Nobody suggests that there should not be adaptation.

Nobody pointed out anything about anything along that train of thought but, very specifically I have advocated for increased production WHILE we transition to newer and cleaner energy. But I'd take this moment to point out that N.G. is actually a very clean form of energy by all measures, and can be sustained for years while we transition to other clean forms of energy like nuclear and other future fuels.

Regulations which hobble supply chains will not only create inflation but will likely throw the world economy into a recession. The US, Canada and most of Europe already have among the cleanest cars and cleanest energy production in the world, other nations would do well to follow our lead on carbon reduction, but none of the world accords require China, Russia, India or developing nations to do so, which leaves the group of "westernized" nations as shouldering a burden that others freely ignore.

We have both SHORT TERM and LONG TERM problems. And we have LOCAL and GLOBAL problems. Raising fossil fuel prices to the point that will literally lead to STARVATION of perhaps TENS OF MILLIONS of people in other parts of the world is not a viable solution to anything. And I would suggest that someone mark this thread and this date, because I'm pretty willing to bet that 1 year from today we will see people starving in the middle east and parts of Africa, largely due to natural gas shortages caused by regulations.

 

[Rabbit]

Nobody advocated for "current rate . . . "

Nobody suggests that there should not be adaptation.

Nobody pointed out anything about anything along that train of thought but, very specifically I have advocated for increased production WHILE we transition to newer and cleaner energy. But I'd take this moment to point out that N.G. is actually a very clean form of energy by all measures, and can be sustained for years while we transition to other clean forms of energy like nuclear and other future fuels.

Regulations which hobble supply chains will not only create inflation but will likely throw the world economy into a recession. The US, Canada and most of Europe already have among the cleanest cars and cleanest energy production in the world, other nations would do well to follow our lead on carbon reduction, but none of the world accords require China, Russia, India or developing nations to do so, which leaves the group of "westernized" nations as shouldering a burden that others freely ignore.

We have both SHORT TERM and LONG TERM problems. And we have LOCAL and GLOBAL problems. Raising fossil fuel prices to the point that will literally lead to STARVATION of perhaps TENS OF MILLIONS of people in other parts of the world is not a viable solution to anything. And I would suggest that someone mark this thread and this date, because I'm pretty willing to bet that 1 year from today we will see people starving in the middle east and parts of Africa, largely due to natural gas shortages caused by regulations.

In the meantime we should do what we can to reduce our consumption individually and thus be role models for others. I am a big proponent of geothermal and as such talk to everyone I can about the benefits and electric savings I’ve experienced. We must be the change we want to see. Otherwise it will entrench resistance to any change and it becomes a political issue rather than a uniting one.

 

[670cc]

We have both SHORT TERM and LONG TERM problems. And we have LOCAL and GLOBAL problems. Raising fossil fuel prices to the point that will literally lead to STARVATION of perhaps TENS OF MILLIONS of people in other parts of the world is not a viable solution to anything. And I would suggest that someone mark this thread and this date, because I'm pretty willing to bet that 1 year from today we will see people starving in the middle east and parts of Africa, largely due to natural gas shortages caused by regulations.

I agree. We have short term and long term problems. A year from now is one thing, but it's the long term problems that trouble me the most. I won't be on the planet much longer to witness it, but in my grandchildren's, and their children's lifetimes, things are not looking pretty. Fortunately, I think the younger people today are more aware and more willing to adapt and change course than the people in my age group.

 

[Rabbit]

We can always remind our fellow riders that the nc750x averages 64 mpg. Win for them and win for us!

 

[bigbird]

In my province in Canada, 100% of the electricity is produced by hydro generation.
Not 1 watt of electrical generation comes from fossil fuels or atom splitting.

Heck, this summer I will be riding from Ohio to North Dakota on one trip and to Rhode Island on another trip. At this time that is just not feasible on an electric motorcycle

N. Dakota?
Anywhere near Grand Forks?
I'm 90 minutes from the N. Dakota border at Pembina.
Any chance you'll cross into Canada?

 

[the Ferret]

I agree. We have short term and long term problems. A year from now is one thing, but it's the long term problems that trouble me the most. I won't be on the planet much longer to witness it, but in my grandchildren's, and their children's lifetimes, things are not looking pretty. Fortunately, I think the younger people today are more aware and more willing to adapt and change course than the people in my age group.

I honestly believe that younger people today just want everyone to live in a major city where everything is either within walking distance, Uber/public transporation-able, or Door Dashable. They don't want to own cars, or houses, or lawn equipment. Unfortunately that is a problem in this huge country.

Like melensdad, I live in the country. There is no public transportation out here, don't know anyone out here that has ever Ubered. Don't know anyone that has ever Doordashed. I do see Pizza delivery cars but have been refused pizza delivery myself because we are too far out. There are no electric charging stations. You are on your own and need to drive to get things. Sometimes big things, which require big vehicles. I'm 5 miles from a town and 30 miles from a city.

My grand daughter on the other hand is 22. Doesn't drive. She Ubers. Lives in a complex north of the city on the 4th floor of a high rise, in an expensive apt. The complex has security, a gym and a theatre room etc. There is shopping, and eateries you can walk to. All the tenants seem to be under 30. She doesn't understand why anyone would want to live any other way.

Reminds me of the TV show Seinfeld, where no one owned a car and they would taxi everywhere in the city. I always thought that was weird, and don't understand how people can live like that lol