I only got 90 smiles on my last tank

8/10/2011 2:35:00 PM

Must have been a whole lotta frowns!

8/10/2011 6:55:40 PM

nah, i just don't smile much...

8/10/2011 10:59:22 PM

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/08/global-oil-supply-increases-in-july.html#more

I'm tryin to get dat oil . . . .

Global supply close to the highest its ever been -- but how long will it last?

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM. Reason : I think I paid $3.52? this morning for gas. Im gonna start tracking this shiz]

8/16/2011 11:55:24 AM

Oil has dropped a fair amount since July, so that is dated.

I record every fuel purchase I make, and have for the last 13 years. I can track the fuel prices very easily...and looking at them makes me very sad

8/16/2011 1:06:41 PM

you may be right but how do you know supply has dropped?

8/16/2011 1:15:44 PM

You both are talking about completely different issues. He is talking about price (I think), and you are talking about supply. Simply looking at a supply chart is meaningless. Supply in a balanced market matches demand. So, the supply curve is going to move up and down with the economy and producers shrink and expand capacity.

What the chart does show is that the market had the capacity to generate more oil, which gives you a baseline, if you compare it with stated excess capacity quotes by the various producers, to make judgements on the validity of their statements.

What you need to focus on is the excess capacity in the market, which is usually a better indicator of bad times to come.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2011 1:50:53 PM

^yeah, I was only showing supply because I was under the impression demand was static or falling (evidence would be the falling prices as well as just looking at the US and EU's current economic situations)

increased supply + static or falling demand --> another indicator that gas prices should continue to decrease

and I totally agree on assessing the validity of producers quoted excess capacity. I was actually under the impression that Saudi Arabia wouldn't be able to produce the excess capacity that we are missing from Lybia. But they, with some help from some others probably, have seemed to eek out some more oil somehow. If you read the link the author thinks we will start to see supply fall a bit because its not possible for producers to keep oil supply this high consistently for months at a time but they will conveniently be able to blame it on falling demand.

[Edited on August 16, 2011 at 2:11 PM. Reason : interestingly some in the comments think the increase in supply may be from the strategic reserve ]

8/16/2011 2:05:56 PM

I'm an idiot. I need to more closely look at the labels on graphs in the future. Just coincidental that the numbers on the Y axis are close to what they would be if we were talking about the price of barrels, lol.

8/17/2011 9:11:30 AM

Raising MPG Standards: Why it's the second-best solution to a gas tax Increase.
http://ow.ly/63qtk

Interesting points... not saying i agree or disagree.

Quote :

"It got surprisingly little press coverage given the degree to which it will affect our lives (thanks, pesky world economic meltdown), but in case you missed it, the Obama administration recently worked out a compromise with the major automakers that will dramatically raise the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. The new regulations mandate that the mix of new cars sold in the year 2025 must achieve about 54.5 miles per gallon (though if you read the fine print you’ll see that credits for various other green innovations mean that actual fuel economy will be more like 40 MPG.) For reference, the auto fleet currently on the road gets about 27 MPG. It’s a well-done agreement that will help avoid well-done citizens as global warming accelerates. Before proceeding, let me note that I am strongly in favor of this policy. The problem of excessive fossil fuel use in transportation is multidimensional: if the issue of global warming doesn’t move you, the thought of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad using our own hard-earned dollars to tweak our geopolitical noses should. However, it is worth noting that raising CAFE standards is what political scientists and economists call a “second-best” solution; we could be doing considerably better if we thought all of this through more clearly. This is not because CAFE doesn’t work; it does. In 1975, a few years before CAFE was implemented, average MPG for new cars and light-duty trucks was 13.1. In 2010 it was 22.5. Can this be attributed to CAFE? To a large degree, yes, as this graph makes clear: CAFE standards were aggressively increased from 1978 to 1984, and, as the chart above shows, fuel economy responded. However, from 1985 until 2007 CAFE standards were no longer raised meaningfully—and MPG flatlined. The table makes it pretty clear that the CAFE standards created a floor under MPG for a 25-year period, when low gas prices (remember those?) rendered consumers otherwise indifferent to fuel economy. So what’s the problem with raising CAFE today? There is a long history of debate on whether “command and control” regulations (like raising CAFE standards) are a good way to bring about change. The other option is the use of price signals—which in this case would be increased fuel taxes—to influence consumer behavior. Regulations do have some attractive features. For example, we can directly target what, when, and how much improvement we are getting. If we want fuel economy of 55 MPG, we can decree and achieve it with greater certainty than if we try to monkey around with prices. However, in theory at least, economists generally prefer to do things with price signals as opposed to regulatory standards. Why? Price signals inflict pain on consumers, but let them figure out what form they want to take it in. They in turn force producers to respond to their (altered) demand, but allow producers leeway in how that demand is met. This allows consumers and producers to change behavior in the most efficient possible manner. Instead of CAFE, why not just raise the gas tax and let drivers figure out whether they want smaller cars, lighter cars, less powerful cars, more expensive cars, shorter-range cars, or, crucially, cars that are just as heavy, powerful, and cheap—but which get driven less? This raises the true problem with CAFE. It misses out on a potentially key part of the solution to reducing fuel use: driving less. In fact, ironically, increased CAFE standards will have a perverse and unwelcome effect; better fuel economy will increase the fixed cost of driving (i.e. vehicle prices) but will actually reduce the marginal cost (i.e. fuel expenditures). To a degree, less thirsty cars will actually cause people to increase the number of miles they drive (as I’ve written about here). With increased gas taxes, on the other hand, less driving will be part of the consumer’s toolkit. Some who absolutely need vehicles with poor fuel economy will have the option of avoiding the tax by driving less instead. As long as their fuel use goes down, why not give them that choice? Greater economic efficiency would result. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office ran the numbers in 2004 and found that cutting fuel use through taxes was considerably cheaper in the long run than raising CAFE. Reducing driving through a higher gas tax would have other important benefits that improving fuel economy does not, like congestion relief and accident reduction. I personally am more sympathetic to automobility than most of my colleagues in my field, and I have faith that technological ingenuity will deal a powerful and probably decisive blow to our emissions problems. But raising the price of driving above current levels is pretty much a no-brainer; it has support that stretches across ideological lines in the transportation field, even among those like me (and even among carmakers such as GM) who do not see exchanging cars for biodegradable pogo sticks as the only possible solution to our transportation problems. Another advantage of a gas tax increase is that it would start working today. Since the car fleet takes so long to turn over (according to the US Department of Transportation, automobiles these days stay on the road an average of about 12 or 13 years), it will be a very long time before the new CAFE standards actually translate into meaningful changes in emissions. But increasing the gas tax would have immediate effects. (Some might object that fuel taxes are regressive and would hurt the poor, and to an extent they would be right. However, the rich drive considerably more than the poor, taking some of the stink off. And paying for many of the new fuel-economy technologies CAFE will result in will be regressive too.) Thus CAFE might be a second-best policy: good, but not as good as we could have. Then why are we using CAFE while gas taxes stay laughably low by developed-world standards? Obviously, and understandably, because voters hate taxes. If anything, the political winds are blowing towards a lower gas tax, not a higher one."

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2011 9:45:21 AM

^good article -- I feel like a hypocrite sometimes because I cheer low gas prices but recognize our need to reduce our oil use (the sooner the better IMO)

regardless of what they do with taxes the future availability and future demand for oil are going to keep increasing the price to make those efficiency changes anyway.



[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM. Reason : nm bad idea]

8/17/2011 10:10:05 AM

^^unfortunately raising the CAFE mpg requirement only worsens our infrastructure problem. Roads, bridges and tunnels are financed and maintained by the gas tax. Reduce fuel consumption and the revenue scheme shrinks. We already can't afford to maintain what we have, this will throw things into a crisis.

The (now) oft talked about option of GPS tracking and recording people's mileage is a non-starter for most people (one I greatly oppose). The logical thing to do, at least to me, is to supplement the gas tax with some sort of vehicle weight tax.

8/17/2011 10:52:25 AM

^They already do that with weighted tags

8/17/2011 11:10:44 AM

^^ And why not just raise the friggin' gas tax? Why impose yet another more more complicated tax when a tax per gallon of gasoline is already on the books and would charge those with heavier vehicles more?

We have a tax to pay for roads. If it is too low then increase it. But I suspect we could fix our road problems if we managed to stop spending the gas tax money on things that have nothing to do with roads.

8/17/2011 11:57:14 AM

^^I realize weighted tags exist, but what difference does that make for all the 5,000-6,000 lb SUVs and trucks that have regular tags just like me in my 2800 lb or 2600 lb cars? None at all.

^I agree. The gas tax is one of the few taxes I am in favor of actually increasing, as when it is used properly and directly the results are easily seen (and benefits reaped on a daily basis).

8/17/2011 12:36:58 PM

Good articles regarding the new CAFE requirements:

Quote :

"How the 54.5 mpg CAFE standard will really equal 40 mpg in the real world First there was 62 miles per gallon, then 56.2 mpg, then 54.5 mpg, and now we could be looking at 40 mpg for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) in 2025. What's that you say, you thought 54.5 was the official number? That's true, but that official target has a lot of federal incentive credits built into it, and these credits could lower real-world mpg levels to around the 40 mpg mark, according to the EPA and environmental groups. As reported by Automotive News, there are several areas where automotive manufacturers can gain credits. The first is for pure electric, fuel-cell and plug-in vehicles. Starting in 2017, for example, EVs and fuel-cell cars would be counted as two vehicles with zero emissions, with a gradual phase down to 1.5 in 2021. Plug-ins would go from 1.6 to 1.3 in the same time period. Next, full-sized pickups would get a credit of between 10 and 20 grams of CO2 per mile for employing a mild to strong hybrid setup. Third, using more advanced air-conditioners and refrigerants that reduce hydrofluorocarbon emissions could result in a 18.8 to 24.4 grams per mile credit for cars and trucks, respectively. Finally, using advanced technologies like active grille shutters, high-efficiency alternators and lights, and start-stop among others would get credits of between less than one gram per mile to five grams per mile for each vehicle. We have no doubt automakers will be using these credits to, in essence, "game the system" into getting lower CO2 emissions (and hence fuel economy) than what the vehicles actually produce. It's not that these technologies don't improve fuel economy – they do – just not as much as a 54.5 mpg standard makes it sound. "

Leave it to our gov't to come up with that retarded ass credit bullshit.

Quote :

"Auto engineers skeptical of meeting 2025 CAFE targets... are you? Most automakers have come out to support the new 2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy target of 54.5 miles per gallon. Engineers, however, aren't so sure we're ready to hit that number. Despite a stamp of approval from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the folks that design and build the actual products evidently feel that the CAFE target will not be hit without serious changes to vehicle size and cost. This seems to be a case of government officials and automakers wanting to focus on three areas; cost, efficiency and safety, yet engineers believe you can only pick two. As safety demands continue to rise, cars get heavier and larger (at least until technology allows to vehicles become basically crashproof). In order to meet rising fuel economy demands, engineers would prefer to go in the opposite direction with respect to size. Ward's Auto surveyed nearly 1,100 engineers who work for automakers and suppliers. Part of the survey involved a question regarding the ability to hit the 2025 CAFE target using the current portfolio of available materials. This question offered participants to answer using a one to five rating scale, with one being "Not at all confident" and five "Very confident." Seventy-five percent of responders answered with a three or lower. From the engineer's point of view, it's clear that one of three parts of this triangle will need to give. We know it won't be safety, and fuel economy is a huge part of our future. Start saving now, then, because if the engineers are right, cars are about to get much more expensive."

both articles from Autoblog

8/17/2011 12:53:11 PM

CAFE standards from the 80s actually reduced the fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet by driving up the cost of big cars, causing many consumers to buy exempt SUVs instead. Is this going to be more of the same? In 2025 are the only two options on the market going to be a tiny smart car or a Chevrolet Suburban?

[Edited on August 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/17/2011 12:58:26 PM

counting SUVs as different than cars is so fucking retarded. In other words, par for the course when dealing with the federal gov't.

8/17/2011 1:12:16 PM