Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?

Looks like a repeat of the 2005 fuel pricing may be in store. Those bastards. But I guess you can't blame them, since most of the increase last year went straight to the Record Profit Bottom Line of the big oil companies and their stock prices have now been adjusted to take those profits into account. Failure to reproduce the same type of earnings this year would have a negative impact on future stock values, and we certainly couldn't have that, could we?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4839970.stm

We've got a brandy new, three gas-turbine power plant down in Killingly which was built by PG&E as an investment during the hey day of power "deregulation". As PG&E went bankrupt, the banks took it over and they only run it two days a week - in theory because natural gas prices are too high.

As designed, all three turbines can make up to $185,000 each per day on $485,000 total operating costs. $555,000 (approx) made above and beyond what it costs to operate the plant even at these elevated gas prices per day.

Per day.

Obviously they run the plant to just maintain costs. The banks who hold the property claim they are losing money.

Uh huh.

I can only speak to my state, but the DPU is so much in the pockets of CL&P it's ridiculous - obscene even.

We don't need more nukes - we need a comprehensive domestic energy policy that disallows this kind of abuse of the system to occur.

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm

Consider this: In CT we are "deregulated" when it comes to power. In theory, we can buy power from anybody who wants to provide it.

Guess what - there are only two power companies in the state, both are related and both charge the same.

And when you really look closely, in particular in NE, all the power companies own pieces of each other so it's really in each other's best interest to keep charging as much as possible while operating as cheaply as possible.

Which is not to say that isn't a business model because it is a business model - it's how you make money. The difference is they are supposed to be a "utility", but they run it like a commodity in which nobody knows exactly how much money is being made at any one point in time.

Eventually, something has got to break.

Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering in your middle back pocket, I'd reason.

Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it.

With the projected increase of automobiles, specifically the gas fueled ones, around the entire world how will this reduce the CO2 and other bad emissions form automobiles. Oh, accepting the Kyoto Protocols is not a valid answer to the question becasue it is a wealth re-distribution plan under the guise of a global energy "plan."

The people of this world are not going to take a giant technological or convienece leap backwards. Your solutions have to solve the current and forseeable future energy needs.

Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion.

Emissions are about the same.

No wonder nobody takes you seriously.

And yes, one new vehicle could make a difference. Ford & GM didn't take the idea of mini-vans seriously until Chrysler started selling them like hotcakes. One highly efficient SUV that's successful will lead the competition into the same market. Behind all of them will be advertising which tells customers what they want.

People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less.

What they ARE trying to do is two things: Build a hybrid SUV (what's under the hood, in other words), and make major changes to the drive train. Besides aerodynamics, those are obviously the two major detractors from better gas mileage. The majority of non-sports-oriented buyers have no need for 4WD or towing capability.

Gas isn't the way to go.

Which makes sense.

Just shooting off an opinion, diesel/electric has got to be a better method than gas - just makes sense to me.

Of course, I can't prove that, but still... :>)

Not trying to put to fine a point on it, but it has been some time since you were free to buy any vehicle you wanted. This country has had CAFE and emissions standards for decades.

It's about two to one, gas/diesel in a barrel of oil.

An interesting side note - there is more product in a barrel of oil than there is parent stock. A normal "barrel" is 42 gallons, but it produces 44.5 gallons of product.

Oh ..... before I forget. Remember our discussion on diesel nozzles vs gas nozzles? I stopped at a truck fueling place in Iowa for fuel. They almost laughed at me, but let me fill up with a warning to be careful. The pump was capable of delivering fuel at 63 (sixty-three) gallons per min.! I squeezed that sucker very, very carefully.

RCE

Dan

When I brought the Halman back from WI, we stopped at a truck plaza in Ohio. Damn good thing I was paying attention to the pump display - I went from 5 in the tank to a full 40 in the tank in under 30 sec. :>)

Personally, I'm really unimpressed. I pay two different electric bills. Coal generated power is $06.7337/kWh and nuclear generated power is $09.054/kWh. I'm not enthused enough with technology to pay an extra 35%, well, just because. As an added bonus, I can worry about terrorism (airport is less than two miles from the reactor) or accidental nuclear disaster.

As an added incentive, in case of disaster and in order to enhance my sense of security, I (and everybody else) have to drive *towards* the nuclear plant (within a couple of miles) to exit the island from a single bridge.

Not only am I a pragmatist, I can remember Three Mile Island.... and all of their assurances that nothing serious was wrong, even as radioactive steam was escaping and the core reached 5000 degrees...

In fact, as I rethink this.... it is likely that power companies have not, for 30 years, wanted to face the possibility of another 1 billion plus dollar cleanup. Now, with a new and younger generation that didn't face the economic reality of that most uniquely human trait... mistakes, perhaps they will try the same thing and expect a different result. I think Einstein called that insanity!

Environmental group Greenpeace is opposed to all new nuclear power plants, said Lisa Finaldi, who is campaigns director for Greenpeace U.S. and is based in Raleigh. "It's a top priority for Greenpeace in the world, not just the U.S.," she said.

To review:

You:

- found ONE incident - from THIRTY YEARS AGO - about ONE plant.

I:

- quoted the campaigns director of an envirofreaks group - from LAST WEEK - about ALL nuclear power plants EVERYWHERE in the world.

Not even a fair fight.

What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR!

RCE

RCE

My next door neighbor here in MA is an engineer at the Plymouth plant. I asked him why nuclear powered aircraft carriers which are powered for life with the initial fueling can last for 40 years, yet a nuke power plant has to be refueled every couple of years. The answer is the quality or purity of the uranium fuel. Power plants use fuel that is only about 2.5 percent of something. Nuke Navy ship's fuel is in the high 90 percent range.

RCE

If we're lucky yours will be the next boat Greenpeace bombs.

Ray <chuckgould.chuck@gmail.com> wrote in message

WHOO HOO!!

but here is one:

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bugatti_veyron.asp

Petro service stocks are next if you believe in following the flow of money. You can only sell the oil once, then you have to replace it.

NBR, SLB, OIH, etc.

I hate it too. And if I were the one making the decision to build or not build a new refinery I'd have pause...Why build a new one for the peak demand of 3 months a year. Like the electric companies when they have problems with peak demand, rather than expand on their generator capacity they encourage us to conserve. Then when we start suffering brownouts and demand better service they request a rate hike to build a new generator, and guess what, they get one.

~~ sigh ~~

Some people... :>)

WHOO HOO!!

When prices were at their peak last year, there were frequent comments from Limbaugh, etc, that it was because "The liberal environmentalists have been fighting the oil companies every time the companies want to put up a new refinery!" I think the air went out of that balloon when it was pretty well established that no oil company has even sought a permit for a new refinery in the US for several decades now.

The basic problem is that there is no meaningful competition in the oil business. The free enterprise model is broken.

Let's say that I was in the business of selling center console fishing boats, and my market research showed that I could expect to peddle 25 new boats a year in my market area. If I wanted to do business like the oil companies, I'd order only 17 boats, proclaim a "shortage", and demand a premium price from each buyer as I let each one know they were just darn lucky to be able to buy a boat at all. If I jack the price up high enough, the profits on those 17 boats would exceed the profits realized on 25 boats sold at competitive prices. However, in the real world where there is actual competition, my business plan to create a false shortage would fail. Somebody selling another boat across town would realize "Gould is driving away prospects with his high prices, so instead of the 25 boats *we* normally order in a year this year we'll order 33. We may have to discount them a little to be sure we don't get stuck with a lot of inventory in the fall...." That's how the system is supposed to work, but the oil companies seem to be in collusion rather than competition these days.

http://tinyurl.com/nt3lo

I defy you to name an industry with that many nationwide competitors. With hamburgers it's McDonald's, BK, Wendy's, Hardees. With auto parts it's AutoZone, Pep Boys, Sears, Western/Advance, NAPA, Goodwrench. How about wireless - SunCom, Verizon, Cingular, Sprint/Nextel, Alltel, T- Mobile. Soda. Lawn mowers. Any of these have a DOZEN nationwide competitors? Nope.

Following from that I must conclude you're a big supporter of Wal-Mart.

> but the oil companies seem to be in collusion rather > than competition these days.

The problem is that the oil co's are all buying the same raw material from the same producers and therefore ALL of their prices are going to rise and fall in tandem. This looks like collusion.

Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR.

To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map of Long Island before you respond: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=&csz=shoreham+ny&country=us&new=1&name=&qty=

Zoom out to be sure you understand.

And why should Shell or any other company be forced to sell production assets to a potential competitor?

If there was big money to be made building refineries, people would be finding a way to do it. There is no shortage of investment capital looking for opportunity.

Yesterday, in Holland, the price was almost $6 per gallon. Guess we shouldn't bitch too much. -- 'Til next time,

John H

***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****

And you're right. The factory has built in a system to change the timing, etc, of the engine so that it will still run, like a slug with arthritis, on cheap gas.

My wife's Forester, (going the way of the Dodo bird in the next few weeks in favor of something else, most likely a Lexus 4wd hybrid), is positively dangerous when fueled with the cheap stuff. It will run on it, but when you merge onto the freeway you mash down the accelerator and then make an appointment for something to happen. Whenever I accuse her of "buying that cheap gas again" when her car won't accelerate she sheepishly admits that she has done so. When I put in the higher octane the computer allows her car to run properly, and acceleration is even then only sufficient to be considered safe.

I could probably save a dime or even 15-cents a gallon if I were content for my V-40 to run like an overloaded 1967 VW bus, but in that case I could just drive an inadequately powered car and save even more. :-)