Crown

Quote:
911digital said:
Here in the uk the health service is in a crisis and were paying more than ever in taxes!

The petrol tax is over 70% and the last time petrol was as cheap in the uk as it was in the us was back in 1987 1988..

We use to have an nhs dental service not anymore, we've been on an pay so much a year insurance sceam, but our dentist sold his business so now were having to pay private, the uk is in a financial mess the debt is over Pounds1 trillion and jobs in the uk are failing very fast....

basicly my mate who works at a window factory where he makes pvc frames, the boss told him to have an early week holiday otherwise he may have to make more people redundant!

i also know of my local independant vw/ porsche garage which is on the bring of closure, each time i go in for parts i ask the old guy at the parts desk hows business and he said very quiet, i take my car there for parts and mot's and for jobs i can't do myself i'll be in the s*** if he closes! they are knocking the buildings in the area down so when they buy the building he may call it a day very sad when one of there mechnics has been working for him since he left school and hes now 50!

i have never been so worse off here in the uk.... mike valentines right when he says people want to move to the us,

that would be my dream goal to move out of such a nasty hostile place called the united kingdom, the so called land of hope and glory! more like the land of no hope and glory,

back over 300 years the plague infected the uk, in 2006 theres a new type of plague, the financial plague caused by the uk government's tax system!

Welcome to Europe, the socialist state that the Soviets could only dream of. If only they knew back then ...

We could fill up in Venezuela.....$0.12/gallon

Quote:
nberry said:
Here in San Diego, gas prices are among the highest in the nation.Our 93 octane is close to $3.50. I really do not see prices going below $3.00 for a very long time or if at all.

I think this is particularly tragic since it really hits the low income people the hardest.

93 Octane??? Where do you buy 93 octane? In South OC I have seen 104 at one 76 gas station. I have not seen 93 yet but would love to buy some

Of course anyone running a 911 can afford to pay 3,6, or even USD 10 per gallon. But no-one like to be ripped off by a government particularly as many who have the same 911's owners are the largest tax payers in the first place.

Most of us in Europe pay at least half our income in tax. Does it give us a good health service in the UK? No. So we have private health care which costs us extra anyway. Does it give us good roads?Come here and try them!!!
Does it give us a great education system? No.

And does the tax on fuel go into making our transport infrastructure better-like say Germany or France. No. Go figure. Rip off? You bet. And you think it's bad in the US.

And to make it worse we have more speed cameras here than anywhere else in europe-'in the name of safety'

No. In the name of taxes.

Sorry for the rant.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:
But the scenario that you propose is that all of a sudden, crude oil will disappear. That is not realistic and my main point of contention. Crude oil will become more and more expensive, but it's not an overnight, on-off switch, binary movement.

I'm afraid you got me wrong. My scenario has never been about oil vanishing overnight. It is all about energy becoming too expensive for Joe Public's daily commute.
This applies regardless of which fuel is used in the future. This works as follows: Right now, gasoline is the least expensive energy source for mobile vehicles. As oil prices rise, it gradually becomes profitable to exploit previously-unprofitable low-quality oil fields (e.g. Canadian tar sands). At one point, it becomes profitable to replace gasoline with ethanol, or hydrogen, whatever. This means that we will never run out of energy, provided we are willing to pay the price for it. It does not mean that we will run out of energy, but it does not mean either that we will never run out of actually usable energy. Finding new energy sources that are more expensive than current prices basically ensures that prices will never go down. If they did go down, the new sources of energy would not be profitable, so supply would be reduced. Since every new energy source will be more expensive than the last one (otherwise it would have been used earlier), it is impossible to meet the unsatisfied demand for energy with cheaper sources. As a consequence, prices would rise again until the new sources of energy are profitable again.

This means that whatever new source of energy we might find, the days or cheap energy are gone forever. It does not matter whether the 2030 Carrera burns gasoline or hydrogen or rat whiskers. What matters is that it will cost $ 5 per mile. A 40 mile round-trip commute suddenly sounds expensive, doesn't it?

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:
But what does it mean to use 1/2 the crude oil that you use? If crude oil increases in price ten fold, you will get hurt just like we will get hurt as a result. Your governments have to show that the extra $3 per gallon is all being used to fund the R&D that you are suggesting will take a long time to mature. But you've been doing this for a long time, I assume. So what has your 100% tax rate got to show for?

It just makes the same amount of oil last longer. It also lowers the price that Americans pay. I can tell you that if we were wasting energy at American rates, oil would be over $ 150 a barrel already.

By the way, it's not a 100% tax rate. We have the VAT which is 10 to 20%, and the fuel tax, which is fixed but happpens to be around 80% at current prices. Since it is a mostly fixed tax, this means that we are proportionally less hit by price increases than Americans.


To answer your question, the money has been used to build a pan-European high speed train network that basically made short-range (up to 800 miles) air travel redundant. I think our fellow European members will also confirm that the highway system is excellent in France. Now, if only we could actually use it the way it was intended...
However, the most lasting legacy is that it motivates companies and individuals to be more efficient. But if European countries lowered energy taxes as you suggest, they'd have to raise other taxes to make up for the loss of income. Our tax rates are insane enough already!

But this was not my point. My point was not that American cities raise taxes in order to raise money for subway and light rail systems. My point was that American cities have to raise taxes in order to convince American citizens to stop wasting energy. But you're right, they are going to need all the money they can get to build those public transportation networks. Actually, it'd also help if citizens stopped voting down such projects. I lived in Cincinnati where they actually have an abandoned subway system, how ludicrous does it have to get?

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:
All major cities in the U.S. have mass transit (ie., light rail and bus systems) in place right now.

You can't seriously compare the city and intercity public transportation networks in Europe and in the US. Did you know that Stuttgart, a city of barely 500,000 and the birthplace of the automobile, had 22, count them twenty-two light rail and subway lines? I know the subway network in NYC or Chicago works well. But how about Atlanta, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, Houston? Meanwhile, Amtrak is a joke, the Acela is slow when it's working at all, and citizens routinely vote down the kind of projected rail and subway links that you're mentioning.

Besides, citizens would have to wait for 10 years until the replacement solution is built. This might look like a minor detail to you, but it's a huge deal to the people adversely affected.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:
On the other hand, one could make an argument that you are delaying the real development of alternative forms of energy. If the 100% taxes are not spent on transportation alone, you are not being as efficient with your transportation dollar as you could be. If you were not taxed so high, gas prices would be lower (obviously) in the short term but demand for crude would rise faster. The price per gallon would overall be lower than what you are paying for, in the net. But the crude oil in the world market would rise because of Eurpoe's increase in overall demand. The world (not just Europe) would now have to meet the demands of the public because of higher prices by now throwing more money into the R&D that the world needs.

You fail to account for the captation of the value created through innovation by the inventors: they will maximize their profit and price their invention so that the TCO of their product is 99% of the TCO of competing products which do not use this invention. As a consequence, the end user is only getting a minute benefit of switching. This means we'd pay about the same price as everyone else. Since the price of crude would be much higher, everyone loses. Not to mention the current reserves would last a few decades less.
This phenomenon is very well-known in innovation management. It is the reason why the price premium for hybrid cars is roughly equal to the amount of money saved by the owner over the lifetime of the vehicle. If tax advantages didn't kick in, motorists would have no financial reason to do the right thing.

However, there are long-term strategic reasons to do the right thing. When America starts getting serious about fuel efficiency, it will be forced to purchase from European or Japanese companies, because American companies have zero know-how, zero credibility in the energy-efficiency business.



Btw, congratulations again on your baby. I sure hope he'll live in a much better world than my gloomy forecasts...

Why would the oil producing nations want to drop the price of oil? they are the only ones gaining by it so are the governments with the taxes but it doesnt cost more to get oil now than it did back 20 year ago, in fact with modern equipment its easier than ever to drill and pump out oil..

the only reason why thery are whacking the prices up is because they can control the supply, you would think if something is in great demand the price would be cheaper?

obviously they can charge what they want same as the petrol prices the government knows everyone needs it and other things will have to suffer like the trips to the cinema or the day out to a theme park etc!

does the population of the uk like to get ripped off!

it seems like they do!

petrol is Pounds105.9 per litre in some parts of the uk, yet one one is complaining!

and when people take there kids to school theres nowhere to park!

all schools should have a big cark park then we wouldnt have this problem! as for if someone breaks in your house just give them all your stuff to be on the safe side so that you wont get arressted!

the uk has its prioritys all wrong!

Quote:
911digital said:
Why would the oil producing nations want to drop the price of oil? they are the only ones gaining by it so are the governments with the taxes but it doesnt cost more to get oil now than it did back 20 year ago, in fact with modern equipment its easier than ever to drill and pump out oil..

the only reason why thery are whacking the prices up is because they can control the supply, you would think if something is in great demand the price would be cheaper?

If the demand is stronger than supply (and grows faster as well), prices can go nowhere but up.

While it is true that increasing production enables economies of scale - thus lowers production costs - the selling price has rarely anything to do with those production costs (except as a floor, since one cannot keep selling at a loss). Instead, it will be the highest price that the market can bear.

As for the control issue, there are several opinions even within OPEC. Some countries want the prices to rise as much as possible just to punish the US (Venezuela or Iran comes to mind). Others want the prices to rise as much as possible because they need the cash badly and know they are running out soon anyway.
However, Saudi Arabia wants the prices to drop and return to the $30-40 range. There are two reasons for this: unlike smaller OPEC countries, Saudi Arabia is not going to run out of oil any soon. This means it is not interested in selling whatever oil it still has at the highest price possible: it still has a long-term agenda.
The second reason is that Saudi Arabia is afraid that if prices run out of control, OECD countries are going to look for other energy sources from other countries. This would have huge consequences on the balance of power in the Middle East and in the world. If oil prices keep rising to the point that Canadian and Brazilian tar sands become profitable, it would mean that SA might drop from #2 producer to #4. This would be a huge loss of status for SA within OPEC. It would also mean that the top 3 oil producers would not be OPEC countries. OPEC countries would then be unable to have any significant impact on the world supply. It would increasingly appear irrelevant. Its credibility has already been dealt quite a blow when Russia, the #1 producer, started selling to the West and made clear it would no play OPEC's quota game.

The problem is that the oil producers are unable to meet the strongly growing demand already, so there's not anything Saudia Arabia can do about it.

Quote:
911digital said:
does the population of the uk like to get ripped off!

it seems like they do!

Unfortunately, everything is outrageously more expensive in the UK. Maybe you should join the dark side and switch to the euro! Only once the rampant price-gouging has become obvious will UK retailers bow to popular pressure and drop their prices to continental levels.
And yet, this bold but obvious move sounds impopular among the very people who stand to benefit the most from this.

I'm not meaning to join the big oil debate here.

The price of gas here has gone up approx 30% in the past 3 months. It cost me about $56 for 49L (91oct @ approx $1.19(CAD)/L). While that might not seem like a lot to people elsewhere in the world where there are higher prices It still really hurts my pocket as i'm still a student who was used to $40-45 per tank 2x per week. Unfortunately the governments love it because they're getting more taxes and students like myself who don't have time for a side job get hit the hardest. But by the time i get my first Porsche i'll have a good Job and will be able to afford a tank or 2 for a good cruise to Whistler.

Groom, I basically agree with all your points, but draw different conclusions.

First about the US lagging in alternative energy reasearch. Somehow, even if there is a discovery somewhere in the world about cheap energy, I can almost guaranty you that it will be bought by a US company before it goes mainstream, and the the US will profit more from it. Why? the inventor will go for the easy cash, and that will be from the most aggressive party, no doubt a US entrepeneur (result of a free market/low tax/ low risk aversion in the US vs the rest of the world).

Second about the eventual peak of energy prices. There is plenty of oil available for the next 15 years (even OPEC refused to raise production this w/e as reserves of crude oil, especially in the US have never been this high). Aslo when it comes to money, people tend to be smart, and they will spend the money necessary to lower their energy bill before it gets too late (solar, geothermal, electric cars). People will not pay double for oil based energy if there are cheaper ways around. It might take a few years, but overall this will put a lid on oil prices.

Lastly, you think taxes on oil should be raised to lower oil consumption. I say lower the taxes on oil (especially in the EU, US is already consuming as much as it can) and use as much as you can as quick as you can. It is still a cheap energy source. Make people afraid that we will run out completly in 15 years and you will see viable alternative source show up much much quicke, and people switching faster to currently available alternative sources. As a bonus, you will get "oil" countries afraid of loosing oil resources much faster than they thought, thus loosing their arrogance vs the western world.

Just a few thoughts:

25 years ago I visited China for the first time and there were no private cars - the roads were full of oxen, horses and above all, bicycles. One day in The Forbidden City I saw a queue of people strething about 1/4 mile - they were waiting to have their photograph taken with a car!

Ten years later, driving in from Beijing airport, one of the first cars I saw was a Ferrari.

The demand for cars in China is only just starting and in another ten years time who can guess how much oil is going to be consumed there ?
China has a car manufacturing industry in its infancy and I cannot see that they will want to do anything but make that industry grow so demand for oil from China is going to have a dramatic effect.

In the West, you are not going to get people to move away from cars. Public transport is expensive, inefficient and inconvenient.Petrol price rises will only have a limited effect on consumption and people will find a way to finance it just as they did with property. House prices in the UK have probably tripled in the last ten years but it hasn't killed demand and we're certainly not earning three times as much as we were ten years ago

Governments know that we will keep paying for oil and for our cars and they will keep pushing taxes on motoring as far as they dare because it is an enormous source of revenue
both in the tax they charge directly and in indirect taxation such as speed cameras, annual vehicle licence, new vehicle registration charge and so on.

So, motoring is expensive, it's going to get more expensive but we are lucky enough to own and drive fantastic cars!

p.s. compared with the money we lose in depreciation on any car, the cost of fuel is relatively minor.......

Quote:
SciFrog said:
First about the US lagging in alternative energy reasearch. Somehow, even if there is a discovery somewhere in the world about cheap energy, I can almost guaranty you that it will be bought by a US company before it goes mainstream, and the the US will profit more from it. Why? the inventor will go for the easy cash, and that will be from the most aggressive party, no doubt a US entrepeneur (result of a free market/low tax/ low risk aversion in the US vs the rest of the world).

Innovation rarely comes in the form of a radical breakthrough made by a lone guy in his garage (which would indeed be a US-favorable scenario). Instead, the future will be made of gradual improvements of existing products by their manufacturer. This means the innovator is a company which is already on the market. This company is likely to be European or Japanese. Why should they sell the company when they have the resources to take over the market on their own?

Quote:
SciFrog said:
People will not pay double for oil based energy if there are cheaper ways around. It might take a few years, but overall this will put a lid on oil prices.

You missed my point. If an alternative energy form was cheaper than oil, it would be in use already. This has obviously not happened. This means there is no cheaper source of energy than oil. Now, when the price of oil rises past the price of an alternative source of energy, consumers will switch. BUT...

Switching to an alternative energy does not lower the cost of energy. It merely ensures the price of oil never drops below the cost of the alternative energy!

Now, this alternative energy source is unlikely to be sufficient to fill our thirst. This means we will probably
have to tap into the next cheapest (but still more expensive) alternative source. In turn, this ensures the price of oil (and of the other now mainstream source of energy) does not drop below the next alternative source.
Repeat ad infinitum. The price of energy overall has no direction to go but up.

To put it in a nutshell, the actual source of energy does not matter. The only sure thing is that energy will be vastly more expensive than today (until we get those fusion reactors to work).

Quote:
SciFrog said:
Lastly, you think taxes on oil should be raised to lower oil consumption. I say lower the taxes on oil (especially in the EU, US is already consuming as much as it can) and use as much as you can as quick as you can.

Oil is not just used for energy. How are you going to live in a world without plastics? How are you going to live in a world without chemical fertilizer (i.e. in a world that is unable to feed its current population)?

While we might have alternative sources of energy, we have no alternative source of plastics, we have no alternative source of chemical fertilizers. They are made out of oil, period. You can't replace them. It's a physical impossibility, and no amount of research money is ever going to change that.

May I also add some "wisdom" to this thread?

I agree, alternative energy sources have to be found and/or developped to a more practical and effective way of usage.
I doubt that saving energy is the solution, this is a one-way street with a dead end.
I also think that what is happening right now in Germany, moving away and abandoning nuclear power is a huge mistake and not thought through too well. It would be better to invest more in nuclear technology research, for example regarding cold fusion, etc.

This planet needs energy and with raising wealthiness in Asia (China, India), our energy needs will increase a lot over the next decades. Saving energy sounds nice and it may help in a way or another to reduce cost. But saving energy will not help us to save the remaining natural resources like oil, gas and coal. We don't need energy saving technology, we need a technology to produce MORE energy MORE efficiently and MORE environmental friendly.

There are many possible sources for energy know but most of them aren't used or not used to their full potential. Why? Because using oil, gas, etc. is still the easiest thing to go and probably (right now) one of the cheapest ways, even if oil prices increased a lot.

Saving energy is the wrong way to go with because the energy we save here in the West, will be soon "eaten" up by other rising economies sooner or later. I don't even want to imagine what will happen when China and India would be at the same per head energy consumption level like we are here in the western world like Europe or the US/Canada.

Abandoning nuclear technology is the biggest mistake because right now, nuclear technology is the only technology which may be able to cope with our future energy needs. Instead of banning it, we should try to make it much safer and especially to find a way to get rid of the nuclear waste much more effective.

This planet can't go back to the stoneage, we NEED energy and we need more and more. The most intelligent approach to this problem is NOT to find better energy saving technologies but to find better and more effective ways to actually produce energy. And I think this is where a lot of mistakes are made.

Regarding the current oil prices: high demand creates high prices. The current Iraq war (btw: the world media accused the US of stealing Iraqi oil, I wonder where this stolen oil is because apparently, it isn't in the US. ), the dumb behaviour of Iran's president, the current high demand in Asia and other countries, etc. increase oil prices.
Look at Saudi Arabia and the region, since the prices went rocket high, a lot of "new" wealth has risen. This isn't about a lack of oil, there still is enough oil available. It is about money and making more money, some people should try to understand this.

What can be done to lower gasoline prices? I know some people will hate me for saying this but I think the only solution lies with the US government: the US has to FORCE their "allies" Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others in the region to lower their oil prices for the good of the western economy and of coure for the good of future relationships. You can't have the US do the "dirty" work by removing Saddam and keeping up the pressure upon "rogue" countries like Syria/Iran but at the same time, you make incredible profit by charging exaggerated prices for your oil. I'm sorry to say this but somehow the US government is dumb. They are accused of stealing oil...so what the heck...STEAL it. At least use it for supplying the troops in Iraq, this would make a lot of sense.
And like I said before, the oil producing countries should understand that high oil prices sooner or later put a huge amount of pressure upon world economy. Considering the current slow economy in Europe and Germany, I doubt this is a good thing to happen.

I know that markets are about demand and availability and that governments shouldn't interfere. But I think that the current oil price is a little bit "blown up" artificially and the oil producers could be put under enough pressure from various governments to lower it at least below 60 USD a barrel.

But I'm not an expert and maybe everything I said is BS. This is just the way I see it, wrong or not.

RC: OPEC does not set the prices. NYMEX does.

OPEC has an influence on the oil market because they can restrict the supply. But in order to lower the prices, they would have to increase their production. Unfortunately, they are already running at full capacity. No occupation of the Middle East would ever change that.

Stealing the oil, as RC suggested, would not accomplish anything either. It would only increase the price even further. Other countries will have to purchase their own oil on the world market. A lot of it will be black-market oil imported from the US.
Outside the US, people would be forced to pay more for oil, because they'll have to go through illegal channels. Inside the US, there would be oil shortages (with price caps) or the price would rise to the same level as the international market (without price caps), because everyone would be busy selling their oil overseas for a quick buck.

If you want to forcefully lower prices, nuke China and India. The Middle East is the wrong target. High prices are the result of supply and demand. Since raising supply is a physical impossibility whereas artificially lowering demand is still possible, your only choice is to curtail demand.


I think there is more to the curent commodity boom than just booming demand. Commodities (energy or metals) are priced in dollars. If the value of the dollar drops, everything that is priced in dollars become accordingly more expensive.
If China needs more dollars to purchase the same amount of energy and raw materials, they will have to raise their prices. It cannot be a good thing for the US. It cannot be a good thing for the export-driven European industry either (if our #1 export market dries up).

Porsche-Jeck sie sind absolut nach rechts

IT's the government! The price of oil is the same worldwide, it is government taxes and mandated fuel formulations as well as currency exchange rates which make the difference. THe market will resolve these issues if ignorant, greedy politicians stay out of it!

Quote:
stubenhocker said:
Porsche-Jeck sie sind absolut nach rechts

I guess you mean "Sie haben absolut recht" (you're absolutely right). Sorry, don't meant to sound like your German teacher, but the German speaking community on this board might misunderstand the sentence as "you're an extreme right-wing guy" (in the political sense)
I leave it to you to make your own judgement about my political standpoint (on a left-right scale) based on my Rennteam-posts - just kidding, I've been there too with my "German English" - I really liked your posting and fully agree with your conclusion that the market forces will prevail at the end of the day (politicians just don't get it)

BTW how come that your Rennteam name is "Stubenhocker" (= German for couch-potatoe) - just being curious Quite unusual name for a spotscar guy

Quote:
Crash said:
Congrats on your baby

Thanks, Crash. Not much for me, lately.

Quote:
The Groom said:
Btw, congratulations again on your baby. I sure hope he'll live in a much better world than my gloomy forecasts...

Thanks. It's a girl. Also, try typing a long post on Rennteam with one arm holding a baby.

Most expensive in our country.
Shell 100 octane V-power 2.25 usd per liter
Ultimate 98 Octane are exactly same price

Quote:
RC said:
May I also add some "wisdom" to this thread?

I agree, alternative energy sources have to be found and/or developped to a more practical and effective way of usage.
I doubt that saving energy is the solution, this is a one-way street with a dead end.
I also think that what is happening right now in Germany, moving away and abandoning nuclear power is a huge mistake and not thought through too well. It would be better to invest more in nuclear technology research, for example regarding cold fusion, etc.

This planet needs energy and with raising wealthiness in Asia (China, India), our energy needs will increase a lot over the next decades. Saving energy sounds nice and it may help in a way or another to reduce cost. But saving energy will not help us to save the remaining natural resources like oil, gas and coal. We don't need energy saving technology, we need a technology to produce MORE energy MORE efficiently and MORE environmental friendly.

There are many possible sources for energy know but most of them aren't used or not used to their full potential. Why? Because using oil, gas, etc. is still the easiest thing to go and probably (right now) one of the cheapest ways, even if oil prices increased a lot.

Saving energy is the wrong way to go with because the energy we save here in the West, will be soon "eaten" up by other rising economies sooner or later. I don't even want to imagine what will happen when China and India would be at the same per head energy consumption level like we are here in the western world like Europe or the US/Canada.

Abandoning nuclear technology is the biggest mistake because right now, nuclear technology is the only technology which may be able to cope with our future energy needs. Instead of banning it, we should try to make it much safer and especially to find a way to get rid of the nuclear waste much more effective.

This planet can't go back to the stoneage, we NEED energy and we need more and more. The most intelligent approach to this problem is NOT to find better energy saving technologies but to find better and more effective ways to actually produce energy. And I think this is where a lot of mistakes are made.

Regarding the current oil prices: high demand creates high prices. The current Iraq war (btw: the world media accused the US of stealing Iraqi oil, I wonder where this stolen oil is because apparently, it isn't in the US. ), the dumb behaviour of Iran's president, the current high demand in Asia and other countries, etc. increase oil prices.
Look at Saudi Arabia and the region, since the prices went rocket high, a lot of "new" wealth has risen. This isn't about a lack of oil, there still is enough oil available. It is about money and making more money, some people should try to understand this.

What can be done to lower gasoline prices? I know some people will hate me for saying this but I think the only solution lies with the US government: the US has to FORCE their "allies" Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others in the region to lower their oil prices for the good of the western economy and of coure for the good of future relationships. You can't have the US do the "dirty" work by removing Saddam and keeping up the pressure upon "rogue" countries like Syria/Iran but at the same time, you make incredible profit by charging exaggerated prices for your oil. I'm sorry to say this but somehow the US government is dumb. They are accused of stealing oil...so what the heck...STEAL it. At least use it for supplying the troops in Iraq, this would make a lot of sense.
And like I said before, the oil producing countries should understand that high oil prices sooner or later put a huge amount of pressure upon world economy. Considering the current slow economy in Europe and Germany, I doubt this is a good thing to happen.

I know that markets are about demand and availability and that governments shouldn't interfere. But I think that the current oil price is a little bit "blown up" artificially and the oil producers could be put under enough pressure from various governments to lower it at least below 60 USD a barrel.

But I'm not an expert and maybe everything I said is BS. This is just the way I see it, wrong or not.

Just when I thought this sports car board was degenerating into a forum for folks who actually believe that government can tax the c--- out of people to make them use less oil in an attempt to create realistic long-term alternatives (without impoverishing those citizens it claims to be helping ), RC comes to the rescue ( ) to emphasize that simply SAVING energy (by merely burning less fuel) does nothing to promote economic growth, and that ARTIFICIALLY raising the price of fuel (taxes) hurts more than it helps. I believe that because by depressing the fuel-using industries, there is paradoxically a LOWER demand for energy and thus a dis-incentive to invest in new technologies to replace the burning of fossil fuels.

And I have also argued in the past that nuclear power is under-utilised in the world, everyone seems to act like a pussy about having a nuke plant near them, but even counting Three Mile Island in the US, the US experience with nuclear power has been one of safe and cheap power (a nearby plant where I'm from in upstate New York State has kept our utility bills down for years). Sure, Chernobyl happened, but it was no coincidence that that disaster befell them in the days of the USSR.


My only "quibble" with his analysis is that to call Saudi Arabia one of the United States' "allies" brings to mind the saying: "With allies like that, who needs enemies?" True, Kuwait has been helpful to the US and the West, but Saudi Arabia has been an ambivalent mistress.

Ultimately, the market will determine which energy source "replaces" fossil fuels, so the more worldwide demand drives up the price of a barrel of oil (and with that demand, the greater the desire for alternatives), the greater the stimulus for ingenuity. And I bet (and people can wager how much ever they wish) the US will lead in these discoveries, not because of gas taxes siphoned off to power companies' R&D budgets, but because the demand for alternative fuels will be highest in the US, and we will attract the most inventive minds to US firms to satiate that demand.

Quote:
Turbo Al said:

Quote:
RC said:
May I also add some "wisdom" to this thread?

I agree, alternative energy sources have to be found and/or developped to a more practical and effective way of usage.
I doubt that saving energy is the solution, this is a one-way street with a dead end.
I also think that what is happening right now in Germany, moving away and abandoning nuclear power is a huge mistake and not thought through too well. It would be better to invest more in nuclear technology research, for example regarding cold fusion, etc.

This planet needs energy and with raising wealthiness in Asia (China, India), our energy needs will increase a lot over the next decades. Saving energy sounds nice and it may help in a way or another to reduce cost. But saving energy will not help us to save the remaining natural resources like oil, gas and coal. We don't need energy saving technology, we need a technology to produce MORE energy MORE efficiently and MORE environmental friendly.

There are many possible sources for energy know but most of them aren't used or not used to their full potential. Why? Because using oil, gas, etc. is still the easiest thing to go and probably (right now) one of the cheapest ways, even if oil prices increased a lot.

Saving energy is the wrong way to go with because the energy we save here in the West, will be soon "eaten" up by other rising economies sooner or later. I don't even want to imagine what will happen when China and India would be at the same per head energy consumption level like we are here in the western world like Europe or the US/Canada.

Abandoning nuclear technology is the biggest mistake because right now, nuclear technology is the only technology which may be able to cope with our future energy needs. Instead of banning it, we should try to make it much safer and especially to find a way to get rid of the nuclear waste much more effective.

This planet can't go back to the stoneage, we NEED energy and we need more and more. The most intelligent approach to this problem is NOT to find better energy saving technologies but to find better and more effective ways to actually produce energy. And I think this is where a lot of mistakes are made.

Regarding the current oil prices: high demand creates high prices. The current Iraq war (btw: the world media accused the US of stealing Iraqi oil, I wonder where this stolen oil is because apparently, it isn't in the US. ), the dumb behaviour of Iran's president, the current high demand in Asia and other countries, etc. increase oil prices.
Look at Saudi Arabia and the region, since the prices went rocket high, a lot of "new" wealth has risen. This isn't about a lack of oil, there still is enough oil available. It is about money and making more money, some people should try to understand this.

What can be done to lower gasoline prices? I know some people will hate me for saying this but I think the only solution lies with the US government: the US has to FORCE their "allies" Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others in the region to lower their oil prices for the good of the western economy and of coure for the good of future relationships. You can't have the US do the "dirty" work by removing Saddam and keeping up the pressure upon "rogue" countries like Syria/Iran but at the same time, you make incredible profit by charging exaggerated prices for your oil. I'm sorry to say this but somehow the US government is dumb. They are accused of stealing oil...so what the heck...STEAL it. At least use it for supplying the troops in Iraq, this would make a lot of sense.
And like I said before, the oil producing countries should understand that high oil prices sooner or later put a huge amount of pressure upon world economy. Considering the current slow economy in Europe and Germany, I doubt this is a good thing to happen.

I know that markets are about demand and availability and that governments shouldn't interfere. But I think that the current oil price is a little bit "blown up" artificially and the oil producers could be put under enough pressure from various governments to lower it at least below 60 USD a barrel.

But I'm not an expert and maybe everything I said is BS. This is just the way I see it, wrong or not.

Just when I thought this sports car board was degenerating into a forum for folks who actually believe that government can tax the c--- out of people to make them use less oil in an attempt to create realistic long-term alternatives (without impoverishing those citizens it claims to be helping ), RC comes to the rescue ( ) to emphasize that simply SAVING energy (by merely burning less fuel) does nothing to promote economic growth, and that ARTIFICIALLY raising the price of fuel (taxes) hurts more than it helps. I believe that because by depressing the fuel-using industries, there is paradoxically a LOWER demand for energy and thus a dis-incentive to invest in new technologies to replace the burning of fossil fuels.

And I have also argued in the past that nuclear power is under-utilised in the world, everyone seems to act like a pussy about having a nuke plant near them, but even counting Three Mile Island in the US, the US experience with nuclear power has been one of safe and cheap power (a nearby plant where I'm from in upstate New York State has kept our utility bills down for years). Sure, Chernobyl happened, but it was no coincidence that that disaster befell them in the days of the USSR.


My only "quibble" with his analysis is that to call Saudi Arabia one of the United States' "allies" brings to mind the saying: "With allies like that, who needs enemies?" True, Kuwait has been helpful to the US and the West, but Saudi Arabia has been an ambivalent mistress.

Ultimately, the market will determine which energy source "replaces" fossil fuels, so the more worldwide demand drives up the price of a barrel of oil (and with that demand, the greater the desire for alternatives), the greater the stimulus for ingenuity. And I bet (and people can wager how much ever they wish) the US will lead in these discoveries, not because of gas taxes siphoned off to power companies' R&D budgets, but because the demand for alternative fuels will be highest in the US, and we will attract the most inventive minds to US firms to satiate that demand.

Ironically, today is the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster.

Regarding the brightest minds going to the US, at the rate things are developing in Europe, it might just happen. However, I wouldn't be so sure about it, since the EU is bound to reform sooner or later and its economies aren't using much less energy than the US.

Quote:
The Groom said:

Quote:
SciFrog said:
First about the US lagging in alternative energy reasearch. Somehow, even if there is a discovery somewhere in the world about cheap energy, I can almost guaranty you that it will be bought by a US company before it goes mainstream, and the the US will profit more from it. Why? the inventor will go for the easy cash, and that will be from the most aggressive party, no doubt a US entrepeneur (result of a free market/low tax/ low risk aversion in the US vs the rest of the world).

Innovation rarely comes in the form of a radical breakthrough made by a lone guy in his garage (which would indeed be a US-favorable scenario). Instead, the future will be made of gradual improvements of existing products by their manufacturer. This means the innovator is a company which is already on the market. This company is likely to be European or Japanese. Why should they sell the company when they have the resources to take over the market on their own?

Quote:
SciFrog said:
People will not pay double for oil based energy if there are cheaper ways around. It might take a few years, but overall this will put a lid on oil prices.

You missed my point. If an alternative energy form was cheaper than oil, it would be in use already. This has obviously not happened. This means there is no cheaper source of energy than oil. Now, when the price of oil rises past the price of an alternative source of energy, consumers will switch. BUT...

Switching to an alternative energy does not lower the cost of energy. It merely ensures the price of oil never drops below the cost of the alternative energy!

Now, this alternative energy source is unlikely to be sufficient to fill our thirst. This means we will probably
have to tap into the next cheapest (but still more expensive) alternative source. In turn, this ensures the price of oil (and of the other now mainstream source of energy) does not drop below the next alternative source.
Repeat ad infinitum. The price of energy overall has no direction to go but up.

To put it in a nutshell, the actual source of energy does not matter. The only sure thing is that energy will be vastly more expensive than today (until we get those fusion reactors to work).

Quote:
SciFrog said:
Lastly, you think taxes on oil should be raised to lower oil consumption. I say lower the taxes on oil (especially in the EU, US is already consuming as much as it can) and use as much as you can as quick as you can.

Oil is not just used for energy. How are you going to live in a world without plastics? How are you going to live in a world without chemical fertilizer (i.e. in a world that is unable to feed its current population)?

While we might have alternative sources of energy, we have no alternative source of plastics, we have no alternative source of chemical fertilizers. They are made out of oil, period. You can't replace them. It's a physical impossibility, and no amount of research money is ever going to change that.

Doesn't matter if it is a small company or a guy in a garage, a US corporation will probably buy it early again because of their lower risk aversion.

About price of other resources, there are already alternative ways at almost the same price (solar, geotheraml for houses), but not for cars. Still, just the first part will put a cap on oil prices, although higher than the current level.

Last, plastics and other uses of oil represent less than 1% of oil use, so very irrelevant in the big picture.

I don't get why you assume the solution will come from a small company or a guy in his garage. The situation is very favorable to existing players.
#1 - the R&D costs involved are out of the reach of small players.
#2 - real tangible progress usually comes from the continuous improvement of existing products.
#3 - the products that are necessary at today's price were already developed 10 years ago by companies with a significant European presence. Competing American products won't reach the market before a year. This is entirely the result of artificially high energy prices (read: high taxes) on the European market.
#4 - those manufacturers have already cornered the market. They won't leave room for new entrants.
#5 - they are not for sale at any price. Asian companies especially are off-limits to us gaijins. French and German corporations are not for sale either.


As for those who suggested dropping energy taxes and increasing consumption: the lower the taxes, the more profitable wasting energy becomes. Do you advocate breaking windows just to create some glazier positions too?

Quote:
The Groom said:
I don't get why you assume the solution will come from a small company or a guy in his garage. The situation is very favorable to existing players.
#1 - the R&D costs involved are out of the reach of small players.
#2 - real tangible progress usually comes from the continuous improvement of existing products.
#3 - the products that are necessary at today's price were already developed 10 years ago by companies with a significant European presence. Competing American products won't reach the market before a year. This is entirely the result of artificially high energy prices (read: high taxes) on the European market.
#4 - those manufacturers have already cornered the market. They won't leave room for new entrants.
#5 - they are not for sale at any price. Asian companies especially are off-limits to us gaijins. French and German corporations are not for sale either.


As for those who suggested dropping energy taxes and increasing consumption: the lower the taxes, the more profitable wasting energy becomes. Do you advocate breaking windows just to create some glazier positions too?

Or more to the "pint"...less demand due to price...makes for more gas for porsche driving...and other less important things like plastics etc

Oh, and one more thing. I don't mind paying more for the pleasure of driving a sports car. I don't mind the high taxes. It's a luxury, it's supposed to be expensive.

However, I am very afraid that cars with low mileage might be outright banned in the future. Not expensive to own and use - flat out banned. Such a "let's burn as much as possible today, the consequences be damned" attitude will only help the cause of those eco-terrorists and jealous hypocrites that are so common in Europe or in some parts of the US.

Just move back to the US, it won't happen here.

Quote:
The Groom said:
Oh, and one more thing. I don't mind paying more for the pleasure of driving a sports car. I don't mind the high taxes. It's a luxury, it's supposed to be expensive.

I have an idea, since you don't mind your government charging higher taxes. Have your government drop the taxes and make it voluntary. That way, you get to pay your high 'taxes' and your fellow countrymen can decide if they like paying the high tax also. Talk about freedom! Who knows. You might, in the aggregate, actually have people pay even more in 'taxes' on a voluntary basis than they would if they were forced to pay. But I doubt it.

Quote:
SciFrog said:
Just move back to the US, it won't happen here.

Absolutely correct. Here in the US, the environmentalists would be chained to trees and clear cut if they tried to ban SUV's and other low fuel mileaged cars. And that would be by the soccer moms alone.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:

Quote:
SciFrog said:
Just move back to the US, it won't happen here.

Absolutely correct. Here in the US, the environmentalists would be chained to trees and clear cut if they tried to ban SUV's and other low fuel mileaged cars. And that would be by the soccer moms alone.

If you ask me, SUV's SHOULD be banned... They consume much more gas than sports cars and are no fun. Plus, soccer moms often drive them.

So where do you put the three kids and two dogs?

How do you go to work when you get 2 feet of snow?

That won't happen in the US either.

Quote:
SciFrog said:
So where do you put the three kids and two dogs?

How do you go to work when you get 2 feet of snow?

That won't happen in the US either.

and dont forget all of their gear (say if they're going camping)

SUV's are here to stay