U.S. Gas Prices (Temperature) Map

[mr.Curmudgeon]

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx

Mostly overpriced, with a slight chance of gouging.

mrC

[JoyMonkey]

Jeesh! Now I have to drive a few thousand miles to Salt Lake City, UT to fill up?! Where's all the thin-air powered cars that should have been invented by now?

[Monkey]

LOL you yanks make me laugh when you talk about petrol/gasolene prices.

you pay the highest price of

[JoyMonkey]

FYI Monkey, I'm not a yank and that can be a pretty derogatory label to throw around.
We all know that petrol prices are scandalously low in the US compared to the rest of the world, it's interesting to see the huge differences in prices from state to state.

World-wide price comparrison (sorry, no map yet):
http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices

[Dartful Dodger]

The war in Iraq over oil has turned out to be another lie from the liberal media based on bad intelligence.

We can only hope the war with Iran will bring back lower gas prices.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

 




mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Find the cheapest gas in your area (US - Zipcode):
http://autos.msn.com/everyday/gasstations.aspx?zip=&src=Netx


mrC

[ha-Y-n]

Here on Kauai, our reg gasoline (that I've seen) ranges from 3.34 - 3.42 

[thebrownshow]

Mostly overpriced, with a slight chance of gouging.

Cool find.  Though, don't quote me on this, as I haven't had time to find any details on it, but I heard that with the increase in prices, the average American has only cut back their driving something like 0.03%.  We all ---smurfette---, but other than flapping our gums, what do we do about it?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Personally, I *want* higher gas prices. Reeeeeeally high. It's the only thing that'll motivate your average American to strongly support alternative energies, forcing our gov't to spend more on research, thus motivating industry to more quickly move away from fossil fuels. This in turn will lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and eventually allow us to extricate ourselves from the shifty geo-politics prevalent in the middle east.

So, higher gas prices? I say, "Bring 'em on!"


mrC

[MikeQ]

LOL you yanks make me laugh when you talk about petrol/gasolene prices.

you pay the highest price of

[thebrownshow]

Something else to consider.  Your gas prices have built in taxes (up to 75% in some countries) to pay for roads, bridges and other infrastructure.  Our prices do not have these taxes.  We tax everyone with a job to build infrastructure, not just those who drive.  We do have taxes on our gas but not to the extent that you do.

While it may not be to the same extent that other countries are taxed, saying we're not taxed for roads, bridges and other infrasturcture on gas is not true at all.

From Wikipedia:

A fuel tax (also known as a petrol tax, gasoline tax, gas tax or fuel duty) is an excise or sales tax imposed on the sale of fuel. In the United States, the funds are often dedicated or hypothecated to transportation, or even roads, so that the fuel tax is considered by many a user fee. In other countries, the fuel tax is a source of general revenue.

On average, there's about $0.60 per gallon that goes to federal and state taxes in the United States.

[Dartful Dodger]

Personally, I *want* higher gas prices. Reeeeeeally high. It's the only thing that'll motivate your average American to strongly support alternative energies, forcing our gov't to spend more on research, thus motivating industry to more quickly move away from fossil fuels.

Look at how much Europeans are spending.  If you think it's because Europeans don't know any better, then look at how much your fellow Americans are willing to spend on a pack of cigarettes.

High gas prices is the only way that'll motivate your average American to strongly support drilling in national parks, forcing our gov't to spend LESS money on protecting the wildlife that live near these wasted resources.  

You're kidding yourself if you don't believe industry doesn't move quickly when it comes to what the people want.
Industry usually has what the people want before it's wanted.

If your car or house uses gas, then you are telling industry to keep looking for gas.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Look at how much Europeans are spending.  If you think it's because Europeans don't know any better, then look at how much your fellow Americans are willing to spend on a pack of cigarettes.

Americans, for whatever reason, take gas prices VERY seriously. However, even though they might feel they *need* gas, I doubt it's as addicting as nicotine.

I think America (as the largest consumer of oil/gas) can and *should* take the lead in developing alternative fuels. I don't care whether Europeans know any better or not. And when did you start caring what those damn "furriners' think anyhow? 

High gas prices is the only way that'll motivate your average American to strongly support drilling in national parks, forcing our gov't to spend LESS money on protecting the wildlife that live near these wasted resources. 

They'll get into ANWR anyhow and even when they do, it's not enough to make a difference in the long run.

You're kidding yourself if you don't believe industry doesn't move quickly when it comes to what the people want. Industry usually has what the people want before it's wanted.

GREAT! Then higher fuel prices means more consumer demand for alternatives, which means industry will be quick to market them. It's a win-win. Why wait?

If your car or house uses gas, then you are telling industry to keep looking for gas.

My house does not consume as much as my car. Noones does. Less gas guzzling cars on the road, means less emissions, less dependence on foreign oil...again, a win-win.

mrC

[thebrownshow]

While I think American COMPANIES should take the lead, I'm not so sure American tax dollars should go towards that research... Especially when the oil companies are the richest companies in the world and have profits to burn.  Have THEM do the research.  If consumers want alternative fuel vehicles, they'll build 'em.  The government can stay out of it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

While I think American COMPANIES should take the lead, I'm not so sure American tax dollars should go towards that research... Especially when the oil companies are the richest companies in the world and have profits to burn.  Have THEM do the research.  If consumers want alternative fuel vehicles, they'll build 'em.  The government can stay out of it.

Good point. But it comes down to who do you trust more? The Gov't or the Oil Industry?
I can't imagine Exxon/Mobil really thinking outside the box, or being completely honest and forthright in the endevour. They have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

Maybe the oil companies should have those record profits investigated further, and when (it's not really a question of "if") collusion to defraud the public is discovered, the Gov't could redistribute a portion of those profits into the private sector for research.

mrC

[Zero_Hour]

The war in Iraq over oil has turned out to be another lie from the liberal media based on bad intelligence.

We can only hope the war with Iran will bring back lower gas prices.

Actually White House economist Larry Lindsey said this in 2002 -

[thebrownshow]

The threads about Iraq are in the Politics 'n Religion section, ZH

Good point. But it comes down to who do you trust more? The Gov't or the Oil Industry?
I can't imagine Exxon/Mobil really thinking outside the box, or being completely honest and forthright in the endevour. They have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

Maybe the oil companies should have those record profits investigated further, and when (it's not really a question of "if") collusion to defraud the public is discovered, the Gov't could redistribute a portion of those profits into the private sector for research.

That's easy, I trust a company, no matter how large, much MUCH more than the gov't.  There's nothing inherently EVIL about big business.

I can imagine Exxon/Mobil thinking outside the box, and I'm pretty sure they're already researching the next line of fuels, it's in their stockholders best interests.  Isn't every major car company developing a hybrid vehicle?  I've been seeing advertisements for ethanol vehicles, as well.  I'm pretty sure big oil, no matter how corrupt you may think they are, wants a piece of that pie as well.  And certainly, if hydrogen fuels somehow become a viable alternative, I'll guarantee that the corner hydrogen refueling station's sign will say Texaco, Sunoco, Exxon or Mobil.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not up to speed on all the laws and regulations that are applied to oil companies, but, why do you seem to think the public was defrauded?  We willingly pay those prices, don't we?  I literally could walk or ride my bike to work, yet I choose to drive because I'm lazy.

[Zero_Hour]

The threads about Iraq are in the Politics 'n Religion section, ZH

Well aware of that, and I was in fact, on topic. 

[Dartful Dodger]

I can imagine Exxon/Mobil thinking outside the box, and I'm pretty sure they're already researching the next line of fuels, it's in their stockholders best interests.

...

I literally could walk or ride my bike to work, yet I choose to drive because I'm lazy.

That was the point I'm trying to make.  Big business is out to make a buck, if an alternative fuel was profitable, they find it.  They have hybrids, and electrical cars, but no one buys them, no one cares enough.  No matter how little your car or house need gas, you still need it.

The flaw in the "America should take the lead in developing alternatives to oil" is, American has oil, we have lots of oil.  Europe doesn't, so they should be the ones developing alternatives, it's for their own good.  

But don't worry, as always when the problems of the world get to big, the USA will step in and fix it.

[quarterback]

I can imagine Exxon/Mobil thinking outside the box, and I'm pretty sure they're already researching the next line of fuels, it's in their stockholders best interests.

...

I literally could walk or ride my bike to work, yet I choose to drive because I'm lazy.

That was the point I'm trying to make.  Big business is out to make a buck, if an alternative fuel was profitable, they find it.  They have hybrids, and electrical cars, but no one buys them, no one cares enough. 

   That's absurd.  People wait on lists for months and months to buy hybrid cars which cost singificantly more than non-hybrids.   The market is clearly there and to say that "no one buys them" is ridiculous.

[jbox]

That's easy, I trust a company, no matter how large, much MUCH more than the gov't.  There's nothing inherently EVIL about big business.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

how about:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Care to guess who said those? 

[danny_galaga]

FYI Monkey, I'm not a yank and that can be a pretty derogatory label to throw around.
We all know that petrol prices are scandalously low in the US compared to the rest of the world, it's interesting to see the huge differences in prices from state to state.

World-wide price comparrison (sorry, no map yet):
http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices

dont take it badly, aussies call americans 'yanks' too- no matter what part of america you are from! even worse for canadians- some of us call you 'snap frozen yanks'    . regards petrol prices, australia as always stands the middle ground at about $1 US a litre. i like your international chart, pity it doesn't show australia or asian countries...

[thebrownshow]

That's easy, I trust a company, no matter how large, much MUCH more than the gov't.  There's nothing inherently EVIL about big business.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

how about:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Care to guess who said those? 

I'm not saying that every business is filled with saints, but I'm just kinda tired of the anti-capitalist attitude today.  People act like business is BAD, yet want the GOVERNMENT to protect them from that evil?  That's like making a pact with Satan to protect you from the boogieman.

[jbox]

I'm not saying that every business is filled with saints, but I'm just kinda tired of the anti-capitalist attitude today.  People act like business is BAD, yet want the GOVERNMENT to protect them from that evil?  That's like making a pact with Satan to protect you from the boogieman.

So Adam Smith is an anti-capitalist? Big business is *exactly* what an obese government has become, no longer attempting to efficiently respond to the desires of its customers, mostly attempting to extort them for more money rather than compete for it...

It's not hard to comprehend:
  small X = competition = good
  big X = monopoly = bad

Governments or business it makes no difference, once there is no competition left in the market place the result is the same.

[danny_galaga]

That's easy, I trust a company, no matter how large, much MUCH more than the gov't.  There's nothing inherently EVIL about big business.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

how about:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Care to guess who said those? 

karl marx? (or was it groucho, i can never remember...)

[thebrownshow]

So Adam Smith is an anti-capitalist?

I guess I shouldn't have hit the "quote" button, because my response was not really about your quote, just the overwhelming sentiment out there in the world, mostly since Enron I guess, that if you're rich you must have cheated someone out of their money somehow.  That's a really BAD attitude to have.

I'll agree with you about the government there, but what I disagree with is that I don't think a big company necessarily means a monopoly.  I think we'd all agree that McDonald's is a gigantic corporation, yet we're not all eating at McDonald's everyday.  Monopolies are bad.  No competition is bad.  But a big corporation doesn't necessarily mean no competition. 

[DrewKaree]

That's absurd.  People wait on lists for months and months to buy hybrid cars which cost singificantly more than non-hybrids.   The market is clearly there and to say that "no one buys them" is ridiculous.

Go through your local supermarket parking lot.  If what you claim is "absurd", there should be more than just one or two hybrids, yes?  Yet these people you are claiming are on lists for months and months are definitely NOT in the majority, and as a rule, people aren't looking to spend more for something that provides miniscule savings in an attempt to repay their initial investment.

The market clearly ISN'T there - YET - and to say that it IS is what's ridiculous.

The people who feel as if it's their duty or derive some sense of self-satisfaction out of trying to protect the environment are the "people" you're referring to.  You need to demonstrate that there's more than just a handful of people in each city that feel that paying more for a car that is questionably going to result in a net savings in money before your statement becomes less ridiculous.

[jbox]

Thaaaaannnnnnkkkkkksssss!!!!! 

[TOK]

Personally, I *want* higher gas prices. Reeeeeeally high. It's the only thing that'll motivate your average American to strongly support alternative energies, forcing our gov't to spend more on research, thus motivating industry to more quickly move away from fossil fuels. This in turn will lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and eventually allow us to extricate ourselves from the shifty geo-politics prevalent in the middle east.

So, higher gas prices? I say, "Bring 'em on!"


mrC

A huge portion of our economy and well being is rooted in the need for rail and trucking to move goods from state to state. You show incredible short-sightedness when you make absurd statements like that one. High fuel prices make EVERYTHING cost more, and inflation isn't going to do anything for the development of new technology.

By current definition, a diesel locomotive is a hybrid. It burns diesel fuel to power an electric generator. Thing is, when you're moving hundreds of thousands of pounds of goods in either a truck or a train, the lithium ion battery needed to get it moving would weigh as much as the vehicles payload.

[danny_galaga]

Personally, I *want* higher gas prices. Reeeeeeally high. It's the only thing that'll motivate your average American to strongly support alternative energies, forcing our gov't to spend more on research, thus motivating industry to more quickly move away from fossil fuels. This in turn will lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and eventually allow us to extricate ourselves from the shifty geo-politics prevalent in the middle east.

So, higher gas prices? I say, "Bring 'em on!"


mrC

A huge portion of our economy and well being is rooted in the need for rail and trucking to move goods from state to state. You show incredible short-sightedness when you make absurd statements like that one. High fuel prices make EVERYTHING cost more, and inflation isn't going to do anything for the development of new technology.

By current definition, a diesel locomotive is a hybrid. It burns diesel fuel to power an electric generator. Thing is, when you're moving hundreds of thousands of pounds of goods in either a truck or a train, the lithium ion battery needed to get it moving would weigh as much as the vehicles payload.

your car is not a train. your argument works for aircraft too- you couldnt carry a battery big enough to make it viable. that is not the point. the point is, that we are uneccessarily spoilt with petrol-powered vehicles. it needn't be so. if fuel prices went up dramatically, car companies will try harder to bring new technologies online. the answer last time was smaller cars because that was the easiest option. now we really dont NEED petrol powered vehicles. we can save the oil for major transport like trains and trucks and ships and planes...

[JoyMonkey]

Thing is, when you're moving hundreds of thousands of pounds of goods in either a truck or a train, the lithium ion battery needed to get it moving would weigh as much as the vehicles payload.

This is why the M1 battery is going to change the world
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.03/start.html?pg=9
http://www.a123systems.com

[APFelon]

now we really dont NEED petrol powered vehicles.

And what about us rural folks? Back to the horse and buggy for us, or do we wait for them to build mass transit out to the sticks?

APf

[Dartful Dodger]

  That's absurd.  People wait on lists for months and months to buy hybrid cars which cost singificantly more than non-hybrids.   The market is clearly there and to say that "no one buys them" is ridiculous.

People are on lists to buy fur coats which cost significantly more than non-fur coats.

I guess I should have said no one who wants a practical car buys them.  I'm sure the people that buy them feel better about them selves when they come home from work and park their Porsche next to their undriven hybrid.
I feel just as good about myself for forcing the manufactures to get the technology right by not buying a sub quality car.

[AtomSmasher]

Heres something kind of interesting I just came across.  In a real world road test, the Jetta TDI beat the Prius in MPG. I guess a hybrid isn't necessarily the most eco-friendly vehicle, at least not yet.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060424/FREE/60417021/1008

[JackTucky]

Aussies call Americans sewers or something....

Jacktucky

[quarterback]

That's absurd.  People wait on lists for months and months to buy hybrid cars which cost singificantly more than non-hybrids.   The market is clearly there and to say that "no one buys them" is ridiculous.

Go through your local supermarket parking lot.  If what you claim is "absurd",

My claims aren't absurd.  The claim that "no one buys them" is absurd.  People are buying them as fast as they're being made.  In fact, since you put money down to even get on the list, people are paying for them FASTER than they're being made.

It's as factually true as the first time I said it.  It is absurd to claim that "no one buys them".  That is a demonstrably false statement.

there should be more than just one or two hybrids, yes?  Yet these people you are claiming are on lists for months and months are definitely NOT in the majority,

I never claimed they were in the majority.  And "these people" are on lists.  I'm not claming it.  It, again, is demonstrably true.  Lists exist.  People's names are on them.  They're waiting for hybrids.  You can pretend that these people don't exist, but you're factually incorrect.

The market clearly ISN'T there - YET - and to say that it IS is what's ridiculous.

I don't know how you define "market", but there are lines of customers who are willing to buy a product that can't be produced fast enough for the buyers.  If you don't think that's a "market", then there's no use continuing this conversation because we simply disagree on what the definition of a "market" is.

You need to demonstrate that there's more than just a handful of people in each city that feel that paying more for a car that is questionably going to result in a net savings in money before your statement becomes less ridiculous.

None of my statements were ridiculous.  If you'd like to continue to pretend that I said that the majority of US citizens are on lists waiting for hybrids, then you can pretend that, but that assertion is no more accurate than the claim that "no one buys them".

[DrewKaree]

You're straining at gnats.

Is this your version of DD's "BUSH WON!"?

[danny_galaga]

now we really dont NEED petrol powered vehicles.

And what about us rural folks? Back to the horse and buggy for us, or do we wait for them to build mass transit out to the sticks?

APf

you still drive what you have until there is a better alternative. i drive a 1973 VW. i saw a dude driving a chevy impala yesterday. my car isnt very fuel efficient- his even less so. nothing wrong with that. old cars are cool! but im not against driving what is still drivable. hell, one day id love to restore a self-driving steam tractor! think what kinda mileage THAT would get! there are less and less old inefficient vehicles around as time goes by but manufacturers seem to be replacing them with vehicles that are hardly any more efficient. for certain applications where you need heavy vehicles they really should be pushing things like hybrid or EV technology more. hell, even now you can get kits to convert your F250 pick up to electric...

[AtomSmasher]

now we really dont NEED petrol powered vehicles.

And what about us rural folks? Back to the horse and buggy for us, or do we wait for them to build mass transit out to the sticks?

APf

you still drive what you have until there is a better alternative. i drive a 1973 VW. i saw a dude driving a chevy impala yesterday. my car isnt very fuel efficient- his even less so. nothing wrong with that. old cars are cool! but im not against driving what is still drivable. hell, one day id love to restore a self-driving steam tractor! think what kinda mileage THAT would get! there are less and less old inefficient vehicles around as time goes by but manufacturers seem to be replacing them with vehicles that are hardly any more efficient. for certain applications where you need heavy vehicles they really should be pushing things like hybrid or EV technology more. hell, even now you can get kits to convert your F250 pick up to electric...

Just thought I'd mention I have a '74 ford F-100 (which I restored) that gets less then 10mph on the highway, but luckily it has two 25 gallon gas tanks