Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,124
Points:2,186,135
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 8:02:05 PM
"This food-based juice has got to have an impact on gasoline prices as it does displace a percentage of consumption. Not sure if it saves any money in the big picture, but it does have an impact on petroleum based fuel pricing"
So by increasing the amount of fuel available by producing ethanol, then gas prices HAVE to be affected, but increasing the amount of fuel available by increased production of oil doesn't effect gas prices?
Can you explain the logic behind this?
|
gamechanger2011
Champion Author
Wichita
Posts:1,538
Points:54,570
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 7:41:36 PM
Reb4.....Stephen F. Hayward
"The two main reasons oil and other fossil fuels became environmentally incorrect in the 1970s--air pollution and risk of oil spills--are largely obsolete. Improvements in drilling technology have greatly reduced the risk of the kind of offshore spill that occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969. There hasn't been a major drilling related spill since then"
The Energy Policy Morass/Energy and the environment
Your author wrote this article in April 26, 2010...around the time of the BP OIl Spill. I started reading some of his articles. He is very "big oil" and against alternative energy.
|
gamechanger2011
Champion Author
Wichita
Posts:1,538
Points:54,570
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 7:10:22 PM
Reb4 said "Try to stat focused and relevant."
He is controversial. His record is very relevant! You always point out sources. I don't give much credibility to his articles after reading up on him. Sorry!
Reb4....you are soooo nosey! Only one person is posting! :)
[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 3/25/2012 7:15:11 PM EST]
|
reb4
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,120
Points:1,823,100
Joined:Sep 2004
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 7:07:34 PM
Gamechanger2011, today is March 15, 2012, not May 27, 2008.
And the arguement in the article is regarding air quality, i believe, not the prices.. Which I will remind you was the focus of my posting, and the focus of the article I posted. And by the way, the discussion of the high prices here in this topic which the original poster I believe intended. Since it is my belief that multiple people are posting under gamechanger2011, not sure if you are one in the same.
Try to stat focused and relevant.
|
gamechanger2011
Champion Author
Wichita
Posts:1,538
Points:54,570
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 6:30:37 PM
Banjoe...you are so right. E0 is .15 cents a gallon more then E10 in our area. Someone posted that E85 is 3.29 and gas was over $4.00 a gallon.
It's common sense that ethanol is not running up gas prices. Crude is.
|
Banjoe
Champion Author
Winnipeg
Posts:4,258
Points:615,240
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 6:21:05 PM
This food-based juice has got to have an impact on gasoline prices as it does displace a percentage of consumption. Not sure if it saves any money in the big picture, but it does have an impact on petroleum based fuel pricing.
Good / Bad / Indifferent effect on vehicles - remains to be seen but there is no question that the costs are not in line with the benefits. Our grandchildren will be getting great laughs about our actions today so make sure you don't forget the details when those future stories get to telling.
We are certainly living in interesting times.
|
gamechanger2011
Champion Author
Wichita
Posts:1,538
Points:54,570
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 6:19:19 PM
Today's Worst Person in the World Stephen F Hayward
The author of Reb4's link/article
"Needless to say, this quote sounded pretty dubious. I was hoping it was just hyperbole, but after reading the op-ed and thinking about it for 1.5 seconds, it became clear that this statement is both mistranscribed and innacurate. Unfortunately, the op-ed author, Mr. Hayward, appears to have intended both errors. In his apocalyptic rant about the implications US carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, Hayward uses carbon consumption and energy consumption interchangeably. This has the (intended?) effect of making the reader believe that cutting carbon emissions by 80% means cutting energy consumption by 80%. It doesn’t. What the op-ed actually said was that such a cut would put emissions on par with Haiti and Somalia, not energy consumption, but clearly Keith Johnson fell for the bait, and posted the latter.
Slight of words aside, Hayward’s claims are poorly substantiated and thus predictably erroneous. He justifies his ridiculous assumption that kilowatt hours are perfectly correlated with carbon emissions with one solitary sentence, “It is unlikely that renewables – wind, solar, and biomass – can ever make up more than about 20% of our electricity supply.” Well, if you say so. Nevermind the fact that the EIA’s most recent annual energy outlook has renewables growing to over 16% of generation in that time frame under most conservative of assumptions, assuming no national carbon policy, no national RPS, and no extention of the PTC beyond this year. And just disregard the DOE’s recent study which shows we can get 20% of our electricity from wind alone by 2030. And forget about the fact that California is on the verge of enacting a 33% RPS by 2020……."
[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 3/25/2012 6:19:47 PM EST]
|
reb4
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:19,120
Points:1,823,100
Joined:Sep 2004
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 6:07:45 PM
Bureaucratic Gas - To lower prices at the pump, abolish the boutique fuel regime.
This was article posted in top 5 news articles.
I can add an amen to this since chicago - Milwaukee are has the most unique (and expensive) "Boutique" fuel in the nation.
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,124
Points:2,186,135
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 5:44:48 PM
Well, if drilling doesn't lower prices, then why do you think ethanol production will?
|
gamechanger2011
Champion Author
Wichita
Posts:1,538
Points:54,570
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 5:17:51 PM
Domestic oil production is at its highest level in eight years. According to the AP, if drilling dictated gas prices, they should already be at the $2 Republicans promise. However, gas prices fluctuate based on a variety of factors, including speculation and tensions in the Middle East.
I'm a conservative but I found this article interesting.
36 years of data not a shred of evidence that drilling lowers gas prices
[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 3/25/2012 5:20:46 PM EST]
|
liz72601
Rookie Author
Arkansas
Posts:48
Points:169,185
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2012 5:03:22 PM
tell me who is doing it if we are still drilling , the prices should be falling
|
gamechanger2011
Champion Author
Wichita
Posts:1,538
Points:54,570
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2012 10:11:47 PM
Silverstreaker....I hear ya! Good for you!
|
gamechanger2011
Champion Author
Wichita
Posts:1,538
Points:54,570
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2012 10:08:39 PM
goldseeker...We have 2 chains in our area. A Kroger chain called Kwik Shop and another large chain called Quick Trip. Kwik Shop has a program where you can get from 10 to 20 cents off a gallon with your grocery purchases at their Dillon's brand chain. Quick Trip puts the squeeze on them all the time and keeps gas prices low trying to hurt Kwik Shop and their points program. There is little to no margin on gasoline in our area because of this.
The articles that I have read say that 10% ethanol in our gas saves us money at the pump. We don't have E100 here, but what I've seen from others posts, I'd have to believe that is true because E100 is always priced higher then E10/unleaded.
The higher that gas prices get the more E85 that we are selling. And it's not just the military. E85 accounted for about 30% of our fuel sales yesterday. We were pretty excited about that!
[Edited by: gamechanger2011 at 3/15/2012 10:10:32 PM EST]
|
SilverStreaker
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:11,942
Points:2,217,325
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2012 9:55:34 PM
Ethanol saves me money. I have used over 35% ethanol in my Honda CRV and over 65% in my Ford Windstar (neither is an FFV), with no significant change in milage and no maintenance or performance issues.
|
goldseeker
Champion Author
West Virginia
Posts:19,550
Points:2,719,790
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2012 9:22:47 PM
Gamechanger: It could be that ethanol is responsible for holding gas prices down in your home state. The current spot on gasoline is now $3.28 and combined federal and state taxes in your state is 44 cents, so that would mean that at a minimum pump prices should be at $3.72, yet many locations in Kansas are reporting prices lower than that. Several areas reporting pump prices in the mid $3.50s. That is a good price considering todays oil and gasoline market prices.
What is your take on this?
|
jacksfan
Champion Author
Lincoln
Posts:2,554
Points:1,238,380
Joined:May 2006
|
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2012 5:14:15 PM
Can't read, huh, shocky? What's the title of this thread? Two replies in and you're already attempting to take it off topic. And you're doing it with a post you've re-posted across multiple threads.
If we actually needed more examples of your hypocrisy, we'd ask you to preach to us some more about message board guidelines and best practices, but we already have plenty. When are you going to report yourself to the moderators?
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,124
Points:2,186,135
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2012 3:42:05 PM
Understanding How Ethanol Impacts Food Prices
|
Shockjock1961
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:20,124
Points:2,186,135
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Mar 15, 2012 3:34:41 PM
From the Institute for Energy Research (The body GC likes to quote from):
"Refiners have to purchase waiver credits for failing to comply with the mandate to purchase cellulosic biofuel that does not exist commercially. For 2011, the cost is estimated at $6.8 million, but the amount will not be determined until refiners close their books in February. According to Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the credits cost about $1.20 per gallon.[vii] These costs are passed onto consumers of gasoline and diesel fuel, so the renewable fuels mandate becomes an invisible tax paid at the gas pump. It is just another way for the federal government to tax consumers, and in this case without most of them suspecting it. Conclusion Congress subsidized a product (cellulosic biofuel) and mandates its use although that product does not exist and is punishing oil companies for not purchasing the nonexistent product. And the federal government is still subsidizing the industry in the hope that someday it might exist. All along, consumers and taxpayers are paying for the debacle whether at the pump and/or in subsidies and loan guarantees. As Charles Drevna stated, “Once again, refiners are being ordered to use a substance that is not being produced in commercial quantities—cellulosic ethanol—and are being required to pay millions of dollars for failing to use this nonexistent substance. This makes no sense.”
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/01/12/government-forces-refiners-to-pay-fine-for-nonexistent-ethanol/
[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 3/15/2012 3:36:47 PM EST]
|