Fine Art America is the world's most powerful sales and marketing tool for photographers and visual artists.
Simply open an account, upload your images, set your prices for all our available products, and you're instantly in business! FAA provides you with an e-commerce website, fulfills your orders for you, and sends you your profits each month.
Federal Taxes. It's a way to raise taxes on everyone by hiding it in products. I cannot remember when it was but a station I used to go to quit selling gas. I asked him why and he said his profit for selling gas was 1 cent on a gallon. Not worth the upkeep on the pumps so he counted on his mini mart to make a living.
I'm not sure about the drivers. Two years worth of inflation isn't that big of an increase. Big oil is killing us, and the "speculators". They gripe that our economy is going in the tank and no one goes out and does anything anymore. Lower the price of gas to where it should be and people would...gasp...travel this summer...spent money on things, etc.
Ricky... You said "They gripe that our economy is going in the tank and no one goes out and does anything anymore. Lower the price of gas to where it should be and people would...gasp...travel this summer...spent money on things, etc. "
Your exactly right. The US Government must think that we the people would do the same as them....stash the cash. It's the same as Disability claims...They won't approve them. What do they think... That money will go right smack into the economy which would stimulate it far faster than bailing out a bank or other big companies!!
Just watched an old movie where they were driving a 1958 Cadillac, they pulled into the gas station on empty and told the attendant to fill it up.
A 20+ gallon gas tank cost $3.60 to fill.
Yesterday the price was $4.10 per gallon here in Chico.
I don't want to blame anyone, but when a company(big oil) is posting billion dollar profits while the people they profit from go broke, it's hard not to blame...or at least bitch a little. I know my little scream won't do anything. I will continue to pay what they charge because I have to get to work, to make money, to spend on gas.
peter, when i was already a grownup, i recall a gas war in cleveland and we were paying 19 cents a gallon instead of 29 cents...back in the day, i drove over an hour each way to teach in a farm community...my fill up was $2. 68!
Marlene, weren’t those steam powered back then?? Sorry, go ahead and smack me.
We who remember the “Gas Wars” / “Gas Crisis”, can remember being in line for miles, pushing our cars because we ran out waiting, just to find out that 10 gal max or license plates that ended in with an even number had to wait for a M W or F. We are not willing to go through that again, so we just pay what is posted, no/small lines, no/little waiting.
70’s and 80’s we use to boycott companies. But in the end, it just didn’t make any difference.
When I came to the US in 1997 I paid $10.00 to fill the empty gas tank of my car.
Just this morning I paid $40.00 to fill the same empty gas tank.
Back in 1997 it was too cheap ... now, 15 years later, it's too expensive.
pete, i could never smack you, unless it was a love whack!
this was 1971...i had a plymouth duster ( which was resurrected a few years back)
i paid, brand new out the door, taxes included...$2400....it seems only fitting that the tank cost under $3 to fillerup!
40 years later......
my 1996 infiniti, worth $2400 costs me close to $50 to fill....what is wrong with this picture?
Aah yes, the price of gas... i remember when i drove from Chicago to Los Angeles for $38.00 and the SERVICE STATION ATTENDANT pumped the gas, washed the windows and checked the tires, oil and radiator levels... now that was, THE GOOD OLD DAYS... 8>))
This is a very popular discussion with 85 responses. In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts. Everything in the middle has been skipped. Want to read the entire discussion? No problem: click here.
Fossil fuels are a dead end road in multiple ways (from harm to human health to their eventual depletion) and there is no getting around that. Renewables have none these problems, and the only thing standing in the way of them revolutionizing our world is us. When people get sick of the status quo, you can bet all the problems critics cite as insurmountable obstacles will wash away in blink of an eye. I have little doubt.
Oh and if you want a link just google "hydrogen catalyst".
Gary: Why do you declare the horse dead that you are still riding, and which our economy desperately needs, if only for a transition to renewable energy sources! So are you willing to give me your car, since you don't need or want it any more?
It seems foolish to shoot the horse while still mounted upon it!
There are of course thousands of links to hydrogen catalysts. Name one credible source that suggests that hydrogen catalysts are poised to change the energy infrastructure in an economical/practical way. Can you able to back up your assertions with facts? For example, the best known catalyst for producing and using hydrogen in fuel cells is platinum. This is not an economical alternative for all applications, obviously! It works fine on spaceships, for example, where weight is much more expensive than material costs. How about something down to earth and practical, please?
It should be noted that there are petroleum based lubricants, coolants, and other products for which there are no viable substitutes, while we do and can have other energy sources.
At some point it will just be too valuable to burn.
And Gregory, the fact that there is so much work to do to make alternative energy sources viable enough to replace petro fuels just means we should start working on them sooner rather than later. Anyone who's made a Gantt chart can tell you that.
I don't disagree with what you have said, John. However, my my main point in this second topic in this thread is that is is preferable to burn your bridges, if you absolutely must, AFTER you cross them! Anyone who has made a Gantt chart can also tell you that!
The way I look at it, there are alot of Linus's sitting with their blankets at one side of the bridge, that just need a swift kick in the rear to get them to the other side. Along with those who have a monetary incentive to coddle them. ;o)
So Gary, where are these break through catalysts you refer to? You know, the ones which will make a hydrogen energy industry a practical economic reality in months or years? Have you found a vendor yet to convert you car to hydrogen? What does it cost in dollars per mile? I would be happy to be kicked over that bridge, if it were built. The fact is, it's a castle in the air. There is no meaningful economical hydrogen energy industry, nor is there one looming on the immediate horizon. It would be nice, but all my reading on the internet and scientific american has been rather vague on the subject. You could have it most quickly if you were to build breeder reactors. (Nuclear Power) or if there were some as yet unknown breakthrough in solar power in the immediate future. That breakthru is, so far as I can tell, mostly wishful thinking.
Don't forget that the government has printed a lot of money over the past three years.
All that printing insures that gas will never be $1.80 again.
More money in circulation means the money in your pocket is worth a lot less.
Also,The government makes a lot more in taxes than the oil companies make in proffit.
There is no alternative to fossil fuels that are cheaper period!!!!
When someone invents something that works and is cheaper you wont be able to stop industry from doing it.
But of course then, you will hate them because they will get rich.
They are a microcosm of what happens when you stop talking, and start doing...
All they really need is a more efficient way of creating hydrogen, everything from the fueling infrastructure to the cars is already under development. I don't think in the grand scheme of things that it will be that difficult if its made a priority.
The Population of Iceland is 317,000. Their use of alternative energies are commendable but can be somewhat inherent too. They have had that mind set because of the conditions that surround them.
The abundance that we possess has also naturally tied our systems to the sources. Alternative energy reliance is many years in the future. As it is today, there are just too many folks that don't understand that feeding steak to a 1 year old is not going to work. (That's an analogy... not a statement on food or maturity)
As far as the price goes... cannot get into that discussion without talking politics and the realities of everyday incomes... or lack thereof.
You can't discuss fuel prices without being political.
Everyone is going to complain about the price, then someone is going to try to explain why, then
other people are going to disagree.
And, TaDa! You have a political thread.
I think to stick to the non political thread rules, Beth Should Pull the Plug Now.
You hit the nail on the head. Its about a mindset, if you have the right mindset you can eliminate rather quickly the obstacles that stand in your way. Iceland offers nothing more then a model of what can be done if you care enough getting something done...in their case ridding themselves of fossil fuels. We could do the same if we care enough. The only real roadblocks I believe, are the ones we place in the road ourselves.
As the Chinese said, "those who say something can't be done should get out of the way of those doing it."
I work in the waste water treatment industry and have to deal with the road blocks to alternative energy first hand, it boils down to infrastructure and buracracy for the most part, here's my example. (extremely simplified)
in the begininning we dumped poo in a pond and then buried it. Then came the EPA and said you could no longer polute the the lands. So they built incinerators and burned it, that poluted the air so the epa said you can't do that either. So now when an incinerator has to be replaced its replaced with a pelletizer (fertilizer), some of the municipalities have found buyers for there pellets but most just dump it back into the land fill, its taken years for us to sell them a system that utilises there landfill gas in order to cut there gas consumption. We now have a way to take those pellets and turn them into electricity, has any municipality bought this system? no, why? because they have not been mandated too and either arn't willing to spend the money on the infrastructure nessicary to capitalise on all this wasted energy or simply can't afford to in the first place.
Please don't make political references in this thread."Public Will" and subsequent posts are primarily political, not purely scientific/economic, in my opinion. Not that I mind, but FAA has a policy against political debate. In my opinion, science and economics and science should drive energy decisions, and not so much other (forbidden) realms of thought. In other words, facts should have more weight than opinions or ideology.
It is not wise, in my opinion to shut an entire thread to be shut down because someone makes an ill-considered political assertion. That just makes the political prohibition even more draconian.
On the other hand, some sort of consensus IS required to make ANY substantial change to our energy infrastructure. That aggregate action/decision must by nature include public will and planning. But we can and should, by FAA rules, restrict our discussion to identification of the engineering choices (engineering encompasses the science, the technology, AND the economics) from which we need to choose viable alternatives, and plan incremental introduction of the required technologies. If you destroy the petro/gas infrastructure before building the new one, (whatever that might be) you CANNOT build the newer, more ecologically sound technologies. Transitional strategies are necessary. I think that building a lot of newer technology breeder nuclear plants buys time, since it is a PROVEN technology, for the other technologies to be researched, prototyped, and finally implemented, a process which will probably take well over 20-50 years to fully implement, if not significantly longer, on a global scale. For ANY energy infrastructure to become dominant, must be economically sound.