Gas Price Check...

[Jingus 0]

Two stations in my area have stopped pumping gas in the last two months because they couldn't make any money. To me, the actual dollar amount is not the problem, it's the fact that the price seems likely to keep going up exponentially forever, seemingly without rhyme or reason. I know the price of everything goes up eventually, but there are so many holes and contradictions in all the excuses that are put out in the media to try to justify it that I can't even keep them straight.

In a related story which hasn't been talked about here, Exxon has decided to sell off all their gas stations, saying they weren't profitable enough. Clearly there's some sort of big problem looming that they're afraid of.

[Dandy 0]

If you have ever talked to anyone that owns a gas station/convenience store, you will find that they typically net 3 cents or less off of every gallon of gas. They make their money with the stuff inside. The gas is the lure to get them into their store. Stations that have garages make their money on the services, and the gas is a way to "advertise" their garage. When a station has to buy gas at increasing prices, it can seriously effect the capital, and they typically raise prices on merchandise in the store. If the prices go too high and people stop buying the products, they are fucked.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I almost never buy stuff in the stores. It used to be you could get a 32 oz fountain soda for $1 which was always cheaper than they price they had for 20 oz bottles. Now a 20 oz bottle is $1.69 (and you can get a damn 2 L bottle for 20 cents more!!) and a 32 oz fountain drink is like $1.59..screw that.

 

 

[Jingus 0]

If you have ever talked to anyone that owns a gas station/convenience store, you will find that they typically net 3 cents or less off of every gallon of gas.

When a station has to buy gas at increasing prices, it can seriously effect the capital, and they typically raise prices on merchandise in the store. If the prices go too high and people stop buying the products, they are fucked.

Yeah, but in this case we've got Exxon selling all of its corporate-owned stores too. They apparently couldn't give themselves a break on gas prices. Which certainly suggests that the spiralling prices aren't really within the company's ability to control.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

More good news:

 

Gas Stations are quickly realizing that the higher the cost of gas, the more fees they have to pay on credit card transactions which is leading to some stations to stop accepting Credit Cards (I wonder if this includes the gas company backed ones?). Thats gonna make things pretty bad, you have to actually walk in and pay AND have the cash to pay for it (I dont know of any pumps that have bill acceptors).

[Jingus 0]

Can you imagine how often a Cash Only gas station would get robbed?

[SuperJerk 0]

I found this article and thought it was interesting, but flawed.

 

Experts: MPG ratings may mislead

Rating cars at gallons-per-mile could be more useful, researchers say

The Associated Press

updated 12:25 p.m. CT, Fri., June. 20, 2008

WASHINGTON - With the price topping $4-a-gallon everybody wants to save gas, but depending on those miles-per-gallon ratings may be misleading.

 

Strange as it may sound, rating cars at gallons-per-mile may be more useful, say a pair of university researchers.

 

Richard Larrick and Jack Soll got to discussing fuel efficiency while carpooling to work at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business.

 

The professors study how people perceive things and decided to look into the auto efficiency ratings and what they tell consumers.

 

The result is a paper called “The MPG Illusion,” appearing Friday in the journal Science.

 

In essence, they say, don’t turn your nose up at what may seem like a small gain, it can still mean big savings at the pump.

 

Not everyone is a good candidate for a tiny car, Larrick explained, a family of five or six needs a larger vehicle. But moving to even a slightly more efficient large car can be a big saving, he said.

 

“We realized improving low mpgs is where the big bang is,” Larrick said in a telephone interview. “But we realized that people were not going to understand that.”

 

He stressed that they are not advocating buying inefficient cars, but rather pointing out that those are the ones that need to be replaced, even if the extra miles per gallon seem small.

 

“There are significant savings to be had by improving efficiency by even two or three miles per gallon on inefficient cars, but because we communicate in miles per gallon, that savings is not immediately evident to consumers,” said Soll.

 

Jack Gillis of the Consumer Federation of America called their paper “extraordinarily profound in its simplicity.”

 

The report shows that people with inefficient cars, who may feel they have no options, can experience substantial savings by just moderately increasing their fuel efficiency, Gillis said.

 

“I am convinced that the average, extraordinarily frustrated, owner of a fuel inefficient car has no idea that making a small improvement will save more money and will save the environment” more than a larger improvement in a more efficient car, Gillis said.

 

So why does it help to look at gallons per mile instead?

 

Well, that tells you how much gasoline is used or saved over a given distance, say a year’s driving of 10,000 miles.

 

Gillis calculated that at $4-a-gallon, over 10,000 miles, an improvement from 12 mpg to 13 mpg would save $256. For the owner of a 33 mpg car to save that much, mileage would have to go up to 40 mpg, he said.

 

Here’s how it works.

 

A couple drives a 25 mpg sedan. They trade it for a 50 mpg hybrid, a 25 mpg improvement.

 

A family with mom, dad and three kids has a 10 mpg SUV to haul everyone around. They trade it for a 20 mpg station wagon, a 10 mpg improvement.

 

 

Sounds like the couple did better, at least in miles per gallon.

 

But lets look at gallons per miles.

 

At 25 mpg the couple burned 400 gallons over a year and their new 50 mpg hybrid cuts that to 200 gallons. They save 200 gallons.

 

At 10 mpg the family’s SUV burns 1,000 gallons of gas a year. At 20 mpg the station wagon burns 500 gallons — they save 500 gallons, much better than the couple.

 

Would it be better for everybody to switch to the most efficient car? Sure, but not every family will fit in it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25284981/

 

The people who made the original study maybe had a point in a better way to convince people to buy more efficient cars, but the reasoning demonstrated is dumb. First of all, if the couple is using 200 gallons a year, and the family is using 500 gallons a year, the family is only saving more because their starting point was different than the couples, so they really aren't doing better. Second, the term "gallons per mile" is misleading because that's not what this is. This is gallons per year. Gallons per mile would be a number of gallons used divided by the number of miles driven. If you figured it up that way, a car that is twice as efficient would still give you a number that is twice as big. So either the people who wrote the study are incapable of correctly labelling a simple concept, or the guy who wrote the article completely misunderstood the study and needs to be punched in the face.

[SuperJerk 0]

More good news:

 

Gas Stations are quickly realizing that the higher the cost of gas, the more fees they have to pay on credit card transactions which is leading to some stations to stop accepting Credit Cards (I wonder if this includes the gas company backed ones?). Thats gonna make things pretty bad, you have to actually walk in and pay AND have the cash to pay for it (I dont know of any pumps that have bill acceptors).

Assuming the credit card company charges a percentage of the transaction to the retailers, instead of a fixed rate per transaction or a flat monthly fee (I don't know which it is), the pay at the pump method saves money in terms of man hours for extra people and or time to handle a vast increase in register transactions and (as Jingus pointed out) reduced risk of robbery. On the other hand, it probably hurts in terms of merchadise sold out of the store (probably the real reason why some stores--if any--are switching back to register transactions).

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Can you imagine how often a Cash Only gas station would get robbed?

 

Why would you rob them for the cash?

 

Take the gas!

[geniusMoment 0]

I was thinking the other day, what if for 24 hours you had control of a gas station with a full supply of gas, and all of the gas was paid for (meaning you had no expenses). How much money do you think you could take in? I mean you could set any price you wanted, as it would all be profit. Can you imagine the non-stop stampede if you set gas at like 3.50 a gallon.

[EricMM 0]

I think that's illegal.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

[Red Baron 0]

So I heard Audi is putting out a Diesel/Hybrid combo.

 

Why aren't more companies doing this, because that is more fuel efficant than Gas/Hybrid

[Jingus 0]

There have been several attempts at putting out diesel-fueled passenger cars over the years, but all of them have failed spectacularly for various reasons.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

The main reason why diesel cars never made it here in the US is because they couldn't pass US Emission Standards set by the EPA over 30 years ago. Luckily the standards have been changed and now you will see diesel powered passenger cars in the US (as soon as this summer with the 45 mpg VW Jetta)

 

The craziest thing is that Ford and GM have been making very efficient diesel engines/cars for the last 20 years but they could only manufacture and sell them in Europe due to emission standards being different in Europe. With the relaxed emission rules, I would think that they would be beneficiaries of it since they could probably very easily start selling diesel powered cars that would be getting 40+ mpg easy within 2 years or so, no hybrid technology necessary.

 

I have a 2007 Toyota Yaris which gets about 38 mpg, but the 2006 European Diesel version gets between 55-65 mpg.

 

The one hit on diesel that I see is that its going for more than regular gasoline is. Diesel here I think is running $4.70ish where as regular gas is still sub $4 at $3.93 (STILL! I cant believe it!). A diesel Yaris nearly doubling the mpg would make sense for the extra 70 cents, but if the diesel version is only going to throw out like a 20% increase in mpg it might not be worth the extra money.

 

 

[EricMM 0]

I heard diesels had like a 30% increase. In that case a $.70 increase makes it worthwhile.

 

Diesels have a bad rap in America since they were last readily available, they're not nearly NEARLY as smokey or nasty as they were 30 years ago.

[Perfxion 0]

I am looking at getting a new diesel as my next car and the only thing stopping me from getting a Vdub is that you only can bring it to the dealership for the simplest repairs as in replacing the breaks. I really wish US doesn't think that diesels are only for 3/4ton and higher pick ups and SUVs because they could have dirt cheap gas.

 

Used peanut oil and a sulfur additive could run a diesel engine.

[EricMM 0]

Diesel also used to be cheaper...

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

and see, if more regular people start driving diesel powered cars then diesel will probably go up further in price which will anger truck drivers even more and drive prices for everything through the roof and into the clouds...

 

and there was an article today that says the state of Maryland is expecting blackouts/brownouts by 2011 if no new power plants are built..

 

Well..it takes a few years to build one, so Im guessing I should plan on them happening. And people want to plug their cars in to run them on electricity? HA! There will be blackouts all year instead of just in the summer when people get hot and run the AC all day if people start plugging cars in. Then you wont be able to charge your car..and the price of electricity will probably rise high enough to where its more expensive to charge your car and run your household electricity than it would to use gas even at $5 a gallon and power the house by electric.

 

 

[The Niggardly King 0]

I think I'm get my new car hooked up on grease or cooking oil... whatever that shit is I gotta look it up again, cuz fuck this.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I think I'm get my new car hooked up on grease or cooking oil... whatever that shit is I gotta look it up again, cuz fuck this.

 

Thats great if you know a restaurant that uses a lot and is willing to give it to you since they have to pay to have it disposed of..but..if you're buying new oil it costs like $10-15 a gallon from a place like Sams Club.

 

Doesnt sound like a great plan to save money to me.

 

where I work, we dont use the fryer we have that much so we dont change the oil but like once a week and it only holds a 5 gallon container of oil and by the time its used the food soaks up almost a 1/2 gallon probably.

 

 

[Perfxion 0]

Marvin, you are a little over reacting to these what ifs. Electric cars will not take over any time soon because of their limited mileage. In the 100 years of electric cars they have gone up a total of 100 miles. Right now, the max is about 250 miles per charge. A person would not be able to travel anywhere of distance without taking forever. So don't worry, there won't be a boom in the market that is going to screw up power grids. The only group who should swtich ASAP to help out and make sense would be the postal service since they make short trips and could take a big chunk of demand off the oil grid.

 

Useless fact: The only electric car with any demand is the Tesla Roadster. But $120,000 is out of most people's budget.

 

As for "used" fuels, all diesels can run off of biofuels. But the limit without conversion kits it can only run on a b25(25 bio/75diesel) mix. With a conversion kit, a diesel could run from cooking oils, bio fuels, diesels, and used motor oil. This market is only good when you can get used cooking oil cheap. You need to coffee filter it twice and you have fuel. Best advice is to blend it 50/50 so you could get the most out of it without ruining injectors(which could cost upwards of $130 each). You would get your "gas" down to 2.65 a gallon

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Marvin, you are a little over reacting to these what ifs. Electric cars will not take over any time soon because of their limited mileage. In the 100 years of electric cars they have gone up a total of 100 miles. Right now, the max is about 250 miles per charge. A person would not be able to travel anywhere of distance without taking forever. So don't worry, there won't be a boom in the market that is going to screw up power grids. The only group who should swtich ASAP to help out and make sense would be the postal service since they make short trips and could take a big chunk of demand off the oil grid.

John Mccains $300 million offer to someone who can produce a more efficient, smaller battery for cars means nothing then I suppose. (Of course it doesn't, he wont be elected.) I would love an electric car..250 miles a charge would get me 2 weeks easy. Chevy is putting out the Volt in 4 years at a cost of $40,000 so the "Tesla costs $100,000!!!" argument is dumb because its not mass produced and its not appealing to anyone other than gear heads and early adopters.

 

The point is, if we intend to be using electric cars in even 10 years, we need to be building power plants in some form NOW instead of saying "No, you cant have a coal power plant because it pollutes too much" "No, you can't have a hydroelectric dam even though its the cleanest source of energy we have because some fish wont be able to migrate up the river anymore to spawn" "No, we dont want a nuclear plant in our backyard" "No, we don't want a windmill farm 25 miles offshore giving us a microscopic view of a windmill from our expensive beach front property and did you know how many birds they kill?" "Oh, but dont forget about solar! Oh wait..half the country cant use solar practically and cost effectively."

 

Maybe the point will be driven home in a few years when there are massive blackouts and electric rates go through the roof. You think the pain at the pump hurts, I cant wait for the pain in the outlet (which sounds a little like pain in the ass..har har)

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm not completely opposed to nuclear power. Over 80 ships in the U.S. Navy are equipped with nuclear reactors (carriers are equipped with 2 reactors) without a single incident, and there has only been one accident in the history of civilian plants and no member of the public was injured by the accident. Compare this to the hazards of coal-fire plants.

[EricMM 0]

Marvin you act like I'm opposed to producing new sources of power. I'm all for a government initiative to train and hire people to build massive amounts of renewable power, be it wind, tidal, solar, what have you. Especially in the Southwest, the solar potential is so huge. And solar thermal plants retain enough heat to run at night.

 

250 miles may not seem like a lot, but if you have "power stations" at work as well as at home, it's not such a big deal.

 

I mean, my car only gets ~300 miles per tank of gas, it's a ten gallon tank on a really old car, I don't see the problem here. This isn't like hydrogen where the infrastructure isn't in place. We already have a grid. We could, admittedly, make it better, but it's there.

[Perfxion 0]

But you are forgetting something. My jeep gets 340 miles on the highway. If I need to refill at the 300 mark, its a 5 min ordeal to pay, pump, and go. Electric batteries do not refill so fast. So it is a 5 or 6 hour wait time before you can continue driving. That means that you can only use it as a city driver because a person would need to make it a two day trip to get from Houston to Dallas, when most cars can do that in 4 hours.

 

The two best intermediate options for engines are natural gas(since we are like Saudi in terms amount this country has) and compressed/liquid hydrogen since they only emit water out of the exhaust. But it will take years to really get the infrastructure in place. Right now, Southern Cali is about the only place to refill. The only other option for people is the BMW 760H which is a hybrid of gas and hydrogen and can run off of either one.

[EricMM 0]

I'm sure one of the goals of the new batteries are faster charging.

 

I would sure love to see flywheels really take off. I'm not sure if we can put them in cars (imagine all that force) but we really need good storage medium to help renewable energies take off, and pumping water uphill isn't exactly going to cut it.

 

So either strong batteries or strong flywheels...or something else?

[SamoaRowe 0]

I fill up my gas tank after every 220-250 miles as it is, so there would be no big change to me. Bring it on.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

All new Solar projects on public land put on hold due to "environmental concerns"

 

Its not April 1st is it?

 

*checks date*

*shakes head*

 

What..are we gonna blind a bird with the glare off a solar panel so it cant see and it flys into a tree and kills itself..?

 

There is good news though..gas here has gone down 3 cents in 2 weeks to $3.89 a gallon. whee!

[geniusMoment 0]

4.19 in Cincy, highest it's ever been. Boo!!!!!!!!!

 

On Thursday night/Friday morning at about 2 am I filled up and gas was 3.96 a gallon. Two days later it was 4.19, and has stayed there.