What can be done to lower the cost of gas?

Joeychgo

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
6,044
Reaction score
193
Location
Chicago, IL
What can our government do to lower the price of gas in the US?

Why isnt any of it being done? There has been seemingly no action in this area. While watching Bill O Reilly the last few days, he seems to want to blame it all on the oil companies, but I dont buy that they are the only ones to blame. (although they could clearly do more to improve the situation)

Gasbuddy is reporting a National average today of $2.90 a gallon.

If I recall, about 20% of that is State and Federal taxes.

Why cant the taxes be reduced, capped, or suspended?

Why cant we take a policy to drill anywhere and everywhere we can for oil?

Why cant we make some kind of private trade agreement with non OPEC nations to avoid using arab oil, thus crashing their markets and reducing the profits from which terrorism gains its funding?
Just a few points to debate.
 
very astute observation. I too would support a trade agreement with non opec nations. Too bad the government doesnt have its peoples' intrests at heart.
 
Mr Bush and his buddys are making tons of $s with oil so the prices will not come down!!as far as all the tax once the gov starts a tax they never stop it-auto xcise tax was created in ww2 to help the war effort well we won the war but still have to pay the tax.
alternitive fuels are the way to go(veg oil etc) but the gov pays our farmers not to grow-y because oil cos are running the world but like the dinasours they will be extinct and none to soon let the people of the desert starve without oil they have nothing to offer the world
 
taylor414ce2003 said:
Mr Bush and his buddys are making tons of $s with oil so the prices will not come down!!as far as all the tax once the gov starts a tax they never stop it-auto xcise tax was created in ww2 to help the war effort well we won the war but still have to pay the tax.
alternitive fuels are the way to go(veg oil etc) but the gov pays our farmers not to grow-y because oil cos are running the world but like the dinasours they will be extinct and none to soon let the people of the desert starve without oil they have nothing to offer the world
saudia arabia supplies us with about 7% of our oil
canada about 14%
usa about 48% we have the capabilities to be 100%
 
Joeychgo said:
What can our government do to lower the price of gas in the US?

Why isnt any of it being done? There has been seemingly no action in this area.

The answer is simple, we have an "oil-man" in the white house with a war-monger as a VP.

More drilling will do no good without more refinery capacity. I think the tree-huggers need to back off and allow at least a new refinery or two to be built. And yes, OPEC needs a smackdown. They have us by the short hairs now.

Alternative fuels look nice on paper, but could we EVER grow enough corn and produce enough bio-fuel to totally replace petrolium as a primary source of energy? Doubtful, but still worth developing for those small fringe markets that can leverage it's utility.

Wind/solar/hydro electrical generation, can't have enough of that. But again it'll never generate enough energy to surplant oil.

Nuke-fueled electrical power generation, now here's something that has the potential for long-term replacement for oil. However the power distribution grid in the US is sorely undersized to handle this energy load, and this would have to be accompanied by development of cars/trucks that can use raw electrical power. Going to need to develop cheap/safe batteries too to make this practical. Still a ways to go, no answers here tomorrow.

Bottom line, it's tough to beat petro-fueled IC engines for their economy, safety, cleanliness and efficiency.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Alternative fuels look nice on paper, but could we EVER grow enough corn and produce enough bio-fuel to totally replace petrolium as a primary source of energy? Doubtful, but still worth developing for those small fringe markets that can leverage it's utility.

We could produce enough to run every single diesel truck, car & train on biofuel, that would be enough to let Opec know not to 'F' with us to much and prices would drop. As someone else said though, farmers get paid not to grow and excess corn, soybeans, wheat is often destroyed to keep the market high.

Not to mention, the military will soon be operating all (or just about all) of its vehicles to one single fuel, diesel... If we could power our own military without outside help think of how much money America would be reinvesting in itself...
 
taylor414ce2003 said:
saudia arabia supplies us with about 7% of our oil
canada about 14%
usa about 48% we have the capabilities to be 100%


Do you or does anyone have the complete breakdown of where we get our oil from? I can't believe that only 7% of our oil comes from the middle east. How do they have us by the #$%'s if it's only 7%??? Where's the other 31%?
 
Joeychgo said:
What can our government do to lower the price of gas in the US?

Why isnt any of it being done? There has been seemingly no action in this area. While watching Bill O Reilly the last few days, he seems to want to blame it all on the oil companies, but I dont buy that they are the only ones to blame. (although they could clearly do more to improve the situation)

Gasbuddy is reporting a National average today of $2.90 a gallon.

If I recall, about 20% of that is State and Federal taxes.

Why cant the taxes be reduced, capped, or suspended?

Why cant we take a policy to drill anywhere and everywhere we can for oil?

Why cant we make some kind of private trade agreement with non OPEC nations to avoid using arab oil, thus crashing their markets and reducing the profits from which terrorism gains its funding?
Just a few points to debate.

1. Deal with Iran. Every time they rattle their sabers, the barrel price goes up.
2. Follow Brazil's example, and become oil independent. Helloooooo! Drill our own wells!
3. Get out of the oil companies' way.
4. LOWER GAS TAXES! DUH!
5. Understand that the two biggest reasons the price is up are a. Barrel prices are doubled - b. Taxes are high

Joey, you're on the right track. But it's primarily the Democrats who stopped oil drilling.

Johnny, I agree with you too, with the possible exception of solar power. Solar batteries would be ridiculously expensive to dispose of.
 
Uhh...the number one thing?

Pedal your chunky butt the two miles to Mikey D's for that Double Quarter Pounder. Christ, I can run two miles in about 12 minutes. Turn out the lights and TV when it's not in use.

If the demand goes down then the price will go down. It's that simple. No crazy ideas needed. Americans have just grown too wasteful. We are at fault for the prices. It's our increased demand for fossil fuels that drives the market. No evil republicans, democrats or big oil companies.

Alternative means to propel our vehicles are coming but until then it is OUR responsibility to reduce consumption. Or keep driving the .05 miles to Wal-Mart...but I don't want to hear any complaining.
 
FreeFaller said:
Uhh...the number one thing?

Pedal your chunky butt the two miles to Mikey D's for that Double Quarter Pounder. Christ, I can run two miles in about 12 minutes. Turn out the lights and TV when it's not in use.

If the demand goes down then the price will go down. It's that simple. No crazy ideas needed. Americans have just grown too wasteful. We are at fault for the prices. It's our increased demand for fossil fuels that drives the market. No evil republicans, democrats or big oil companies.

Alternative means to propel our vehicles are coming but until then it is OUR responsibility to reduce consumption. Or keep driving the .05 miles to Wal-Mart...but I don't want to hear any complaining.

You're forgetting to mention supply.

I hate to disagree with you, my friend, but demand doesn't affect oil prices that much. Demand is pretty static these days. And even if we didn't buy from OPEC, they would just sell to somebody else. Supply is the bigger issue here, and since there is a documented unlimited supply of oil in this planet, OPEC gets to decide how much they want to produce, which means they get to LITERALLY CONTROL THE PRICE OF OIL. The only real solution to this problem is to produce our own oil. Currently because of environmental regulations, it's almost not worth it to drill and produce here in the good ol' USA. If we could get these regulations relaxed and enact some incentives, things would change.

Just go look up "Brazil oil independence" on google and you'll see how it's done.
 
CNN Solution for High Gas Prices: More Taxes!
Posted by Ken Shepherd on April 25, 2006 - 13:54.

Miles O'Brien may be CNN's resident NASA expert. But that doesn't make him a rocket scientist, and it sure doesn't make him an economist.

Maybe that's why he thinks raising taxes will help alleviate high gas prices.

There “could be a good argument for a gas tax in all of this to help pay for these alternative fuels,” the “American Morning” co-host suggested on the April 25 program.

“We have enough gas taxes, don’t you think,” reporter Carol Costello fired back.

Every American motorist already pays 18 cents on the gallon to Uncle Sam and anywhere from 8 to 45 cents per gallon to state governments, according to figures compiled by the American Petroleum Institute. In fact, the Energy Department estimates taxes account for 19 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline, nearly as much as the 22 percent of the price that goes to refining costs.


O’Brien was reacting to a report showing purchases of gasoline-inefficient vehicles are as popular as ever with consumers.
 
fossten said:
Joey, you're on the right track. But it's primarily the Democrats who stopped oil drilling.


I dont buy this. There is a Republican controlled White House and Republican Controlled Congress. This could get done if thesy choose to.

Personally, I think its a mistake to not do this. The pipeline hasnt burst in all these years, so I dont buy the enviromental bs. Alaska as survived just fine so far. Turn Alaska into swiss cheese.

As far as refineries, thats an easy one.

Enact a law. Any domestic oil company that profited XXX dollars in 2005 must begin construction on a refinary within 5 years or face a fine equal to their 2005 profits.

Wanna see how fast they get their shovels out?

95DevilleNS said:
Do you or does anyone have the complete breakdown of where we get our oil from? I can't believe that only 7% of our oil comes from the middle east. How do they have us by the #$%'s if it's only 7%??? Where's the other 31%?



I found this


Here is a breakdown based on government data for the year 2000:

Supplied Domestically 38.2 %
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
Iraq* 3.7 %
United Kingdom 2.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 2.7 %
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6 %​


crude_oil_060201_ssh.jpg
 
Joeychgo said:
I dont buy this. There is a Republican controlled White House and Republican Controlled Congress. This could get done if thesy choose to.

Personally, I think its a mistake to not do this. The pipeline hasnt burst in all these years, so I dont buy the enviromental bs. Alaska as survived just fine so far. Turn Alaska into swiss cheese.

As far as refineries, thats an easy one.

Enact a law. Any domestic oil company that profited XXX dollars in 2005 must begin construction on a refinary within 5 years or face a fine equal to their 2005 profits.

Wanna see how fast they get their shovels out?

Right and wrong, Joey. There were a few RINOs that voted against ANWR, for example, but ALL the Dems voted against it. It was just enough to put the bill down.

Right and wrong again. Enact a law that PROVIDES POSITIVE INCENTIVES for oil companies to build refineries, not one that THREATENS PUNISHMENT. Geez, Joey, why all the hate?

And you've got to drill for more oil, or there isn't a reason for more refineries anyway.
 
fossten said:
Right and wrong again. Enact a law that PROVIDES POSITIVE INCENTIVES for oil companies to build refineries, not one that THREATENS PUNISHMENT. Geez, Joey, why all the hate?


Becuase they can pay a retirment package of $400 million to an outgoing CEO. Im not paying them to build infrastructure.

In the restaurant business, if they enact a new code, we had to run out and buy the equipment to meet it. Oil companies can do the same.

April 25, 2006
"record oil company profits in 2005," listing Exxon/Mobil at $36.1 billion, Chevron at $14.4 billion and Conoco/Philips at $13.5 billion. He also criticized oil company executives for taking huge bonuses and salaries as low-income wage earners couldn't afford to drive to work.

April 25, 2006
BP PLC on Tuesday reported a $5.6 billion first-quarter profit, though that was down almost $1 billion from the year before in part because of lost gasoline output from a refinery damaged by Hurricane Katrina. In a sign of just how much money stands to be made on the refining side of the business these days, Valero Energy Corp., the nation's largest independent refiner, said Tuesday its first-quarter profit jumped 60 percent to $848 million.

They can easily afford it, and that also answers your refinary point.
 
fossten said:
You're forgetting to mention supply.

I hate to disagree with you, my friend, but demand doesn't affect oil prices that much. Demand is pretty static these days. And even if we didn't buy from OPEC, they would just sell to somebody else. Supply is the bigger issue here, and since there is a documented unlimited supply of oil in this planet, OPEC gets to decide how much they want to produce, which means they get to LITERALLY CONTROL THE PRICE OF OIL. The only real solution to this problem is to produce our own oil. Currently because of environmental regulations, it's almost not worth it to drill and produce here in the good ol' USA. If we could get these regulations relaxed and enact some incentives, things would change.

Just go look up "Brazil oil independence" on google and you'll see how it's done.
Brazil's oil independence is due to the fact that about 70% of the vehicles sold in country run on ethanol and they produce their own from sugar cane, which has a much higher yield than corn. The state sponsored and promoted research and investment in the sugar cane and ethanol industries. There was a very interesting article about it on the NYTimes website a few weeks ago.
 
Joeychgo said:
Personally, I think its a mistake to not do this. The pipeline hasnt burst in all these years, so I dont buy the enviromental bs. Alaska as survived just fine so far. Turn Alaska into swiss cheese.

Large Oil Spill in Alaska Went Undetected for Days
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/n...61d76e5f69ee24&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: March 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, March 14 — The largest oil spill to occur on the tundra of Alaska's North Slope has deposited up to 267,000 gallons of thick crude oil over two acres in the sprawling Prudhoe Bay production facilities, forcing cleanup crews to work in temperatures far below zero to vacuum and dig up the thick mixture of snow and oil.

The spill went undetected for as long as five days before an oilfield worker detected the acrid scent of hydrocarbons while driving through the area on March 2, Maureen Johnson, the senior vice president and manager of the Prudhoe Bay unit for BP, said at a news conference in Anchorage on Tuesday.

At the conference, officials from BP, the company pumping the oil, and from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said they believed that the oil had escaped through a pinprick-size hole in a corroded 34-inch pipe leading to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

The pressure of the leaking oil, they said, gradually expanded the hole to a quarter- or half-inch wide. Most of the oil seeped beneath the snow without attracting the attention of workers monitoring alarm systems.

The leak occurred in a section of pipe built in the late 1970's, in the earliest days of oil production at Prudhoe Bay. The larger pipeline, which carries North Slope oil across the state, was completed in 1977.

Environmental groups were quick to point out that the spill raises doubts about the continuing reliability and durability of the infrastructure of North Slope production.

The current spill is among the worst in the pipeline's history, and the first of such a magnitude likely to be blamed on the decay of the aging system. In 1989, about 11 million gallons fouled Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez tanker ran aground. About 700,000 gallons escaped from the pipeline after vandals blew up a section of it in 1978, and about 285,000 gallons spilled in 2001 when a hunter shot the pipeline.

Asked later on Tuesday about how company and state officials arrived at their tentative conclusions about the cause of the spill, Ms. Johnson said investigators had "looked at the leak investigation system, at all the logs and all the charts" that measure oil volume and pressure at different times and in different areas.

At the news conference, Ms. Johnson said that although routine inspections last year indicated increasing corrosion in the pipe, the severity of corrosion found since the leak pointed to a swift and sudden deterioration. "We had no reason to expect" that this pipe, which carried 100,000 barrels of oil to the Alaska pipeline a day, "was going to leak," she said.

Ms. Johnson also said the leak was "smaller than our system would detect," adding that it was "still not acceptable to BP."

The normal fluctuations of oil flow in this particular pipe could have masked warning signals, state environment officials said.

and: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11958576
 
There are ALWAYS enviromental issues when you drill for oil, be it land, sea, artic or desert. You wouldnt outlaw tankers because the Exxon Valdez... We have to clean these things up, of course, but its not like Alaska is gonna fall into the ocean because of it.
 
97silverlsc said:
Brazil's oil independence is due to the fact that about 70% of the vehicles sold in country run on ethanol and they produce their own from sugar cane, which has a much higher yield than corn. The state sponsored and promoted research and investment in the sugar cane and ethanol industries. There was a very interesting article about it on the NYTimes website a few weeks ago.

Wrong. Brazil's oil independence is due to the fact that they produce more barrels of oil offshore than they currently use. Period.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-04-22-voa23.cfm

Typical misdirection tactics by the left.
 
Joey, you're wrong again.

[snip]



Analysis: Bush and the oil crunch


By Richard Tomkins
UPI White House Correspondent

Washington, DC, Apr. 21 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush's exhortations to Congress to resolve differences and pass a comprehensive energy bill appears to have generated some movement on Capitol Hill, but passage of a measure any time soon won't help Americans squeezed at the gas pump.

The price of crude oil is more than $50 a barrel; the national average for a gallon of regular last week was $2.23 -- $2.58 in California -- and analysts say the situation is unlikely to change for the better.

"In the short-term, there is nothing he can do," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst and energy expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. "Oil is a global commodity, and there is not much the U.S. government can do to bring down oil prices. This is a period of tight demand."

John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, said the simple fact is that "demand has overtaken all of us, including OPEC," the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Even Bush, ever the optimist, admits limitations. His energy proposal -- which includes financial incentives for alternative energy development, new energy infrastructure and drilling in part of an Alaskan wildlife preserve -- is geared to the longer term, not the here and now.

"I wish I could. I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow," he said. "I'd do that. Unfortunately, higher gas prices are a problem that has been years in the making (but) we have things we can do to try to help intermediate term."

The facts, based on U.S. government and oil industry statistics, are these: The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil daily to power its vehicles, run its machinery, produce its plastic, and so on. About 13 million barrels of that total are imported. In the first two months of 2005, an average of 1.56 million barrels of that daily supply came from Saudi Arabia, 1.52 million from Canada and 1.43 million from Mexico. Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Ecuador, Angola, Russia, Algeria, Britain, Kuwait, Gabon, Chad and Colombia, in that order, round out the top 15 oil exporters to the United States.

U.S. consumption is growing at about 2 percent annually.

Among others vying for oil supplies are China and India. China is consuming about 6 million barrels a day, and according to Felmy, that figure is increasing at a rate of about 20 percent a year.

OPEC countries produce close to 29.5 million barrels a day, including unofficial, non-quota production. Production could be increased another million or so barrels a day, but they are nearing production capacity. Opening new oil fields and the facilities needed takes time and money.

"This isn't so much OPEC-driven as in the past," said Lieberman. "This is more demand driven, a period of tight demand. Actually, OPEC is producing record amounts."

Oil supply is not the only problem. Refining the crude also comes into play. The United States has about 150 refineries, down from 300 in the early 1980s. No new refinery has been built since 1976 given cost, environmental regulations and public opposition. Refineries at work are running at more than 90 percent capacity as it is.

"There are folks who have been trying to build a refinery for 10 years in Arizona and they still haven't broken ground," Felmy said.

"The cost of building a refinery is huge but the bigger problem is, siting one is virtually impossible. Just trying to build an industrial facility of any type in someone's backyard is an enormous challenge."

Felmy says the cost of building a refinery, with its tanks, buildings, pipes, environmental protects, etc., is at least $1 billion, and profit margins are low when taking into account environmental investment, which some oversees competitors do not have to engage in, and the complications of refining in the United States. One of those challenges is producing 17 different types of gasoline mixtures in accordance with federal, state and locale mandates. California, for example, has its own mandated mixture that no other state uses. Maryland has a separate mixture from neighboring Delaware. Even Atlanta has regulations for its gasoline that differ from others.

"We can encourage oil-producing nations to maximize their production," Bush said in a speech Wednesday. "But we must act now to address the fundamental problem. Our supply of energy is not growing fast enough to meet the demands of our growing economy.

"Over the past decade, America's energy consumption has increased by more than 12 percent, yet our domestic production increased by less than 1 percent."

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050421-035239-7136r.htm
 
if you want to save $ on gas....hijack and make it your own...gas station.
 
contact your senators and congressmen to press for the release of Cheney's energy policy meeting minutes-- might help answer some of your questions.
 
MrWilson said:
if you want to save $ on gas....hijack and make it your own...gas station.

NAHHH TOO risky, Just hijack the tankers going to the gas stations, then you can hide them better instead of being stationary where they can find you.

OH SORRY WAS I THINKING OUTLOUD? :D
 
fossten said:
Wrong. Brazil's oil independence is due to the fact that they produce more barrels of oil offshore than they currently use. Period.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-04-22-voa23.cfm

Typical misdirection tactics by the left.

Wrong again, Fossten!

"Over the past three decades Brazil has worked to create a viable alternative to gasoline. With its sugarcane-based fuel, the nation may become energy independent this year. Brazil’s ethanol program, which originated in the 1970s in response to the uncertainties of the oil market, has enjoyed intermittent success. Still, many Brazilians are driving “flexible fuel” cars that run on either ethanol or gasoline and allow the consumer to fill up with whichever option is cheaper – often ethanol. Countries with large fuel bills such as India and China are following Brazil’s progress closely. The US is taking small steps towards the use of ethanol, but its process, relying on corn, is lengthier and more expensive. In addition, countries such as Japan and Sweden are importing ethanol from Brazil to help fulfill their environmental obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Running cars on carbohydrates instead of fossil fuels may not be a new idea, and ethanol has drawbacks, but the fuel offers an attractive alternative as oil prices climb. - YaleGlobal

As Brazil Fills Up on Ethanol, It Weans Off Energy Imports
David Luhnow
Geraldo Samor
The Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006


RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- After nearly three decades of work, Brazil has succeeded where much of the industrialized world has failed: It has developed a cost-effective alternative to gasoline. Along with new offshore oil discoveries, that's a big reason Brazil expects to become energy independent this year.

To see how, take a look at Gildo Ferreira, a 39-year-old real-estate executive, who pulled his VW Fox into a filling station one recent afternoon. Instead of reaching for the gasoline, he spent $29 to fill up his car on ethanol made from sugar cane, an option that's available at 29,000 gas stations from Rio to the Amazon. A comparable tank of gasoline would have cost him $36. "It's cheaper and it's made here in Brazil," Mr. Ferreira says of ethanol. If the price of oil stays at current levels, he can expect to save about $350 a year.

[Saving at the Pump]

At current prices, Brazil can make ethanol for about $1 a gallon, according to the World Bank. That compares with the international price of gasoline of about $1.50 a gallon. Even though ethanol gets less mileage than gasoline, in Brazil it's still cheaper per mile driven. As a result, ethanol now accounts for as much as 20% of Brazil's transport fuel market. The country's use of gasoline has actually declined since the late 1970s. The use of alternative fuels in the rest of the world is a scant 1%.

Yet countries wanting to follow Brazil's example may be leery about following its methods. Military and civilian leaders laid the groundwork by mandating ethanol use and dictating production levels. They bankrolled technology projects costing billions of dollars, despite criticism they were wasting money. Brazil ended most government support for its sugar industry in the late 1990s, forcing sugar producers to become more efficient and helping lower the cost of ethanol's raw material. That's something Western countries are loath to do, preferring to support domestic farmers.

With government support, sugar companies and auto makers' local units delivered cost-saving breakthroughs. "Flexible fuel" cars running ethanol, gasoline or a mixture of both, have become a hit. Car buyers no longer have to worry about fluctuating prices for either fuel because flex-fuel cars allow them to hedge their bets at the pump. Seven out of every 10 new cars sold in Brazil are flex-fuel.

Brazil is also fortunate that sugar is the cheapest way to make ethanol and Brazil has the right conditions for growing the crop -- plenty of land, rain and cheap labor.

Despite these unique circumstances, Brazil's efforts are being closely followed by countries with big fuel bills. India and China have sent a parade of top officials to see Brazil's program. India, the world's second-biggest sugar producer behind Brazil, mandated in 2003 that nine of its states add a 5% ethanol mixture to gas. The Brazilian unit of Germany's Volkswagen AG, the first car maker to introduce a flex-fuel model in Brazil, has received 38 delegations from more than a dozen countries in the past year alone, VW officials say.

Brazil says its ethanol exports will likely double to $1.3 billion in 2010 from $600 million in 2005, largely to Japan and Sweden. These countries hope using ethanol -- which releases less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels -- will help them meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to cut emissions.

The U.S., which currently imports 60% of its oil, is watching Brazil's progress, too. Three members of the Senate Energy Committee recently visited, and Sen. Hillary Clinton has cited Brazil as a role model in cutting dependence on imported oil. When President Bush made a recent stop-over in Brasilia, Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hosted a barbecue and described to Mr. Bush how the country has reduced its oil import bill, according to Brazilian officials at the meeting.

The most recent U.S. energy bill, signed into law in August, calls for more than doubling ethanol use by 2012. But U.S. ethanol, which is made from corn, costs at least 30% more than Brazil's product, in part because the starch in corn must be first turned into sugar before being distilled into alcohol. It may take the U.S. a few more decades to bring the cost of ethanol down to 80 cents a gallon -- equivalent to Brazil's most efficient producers -- according to the U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. trade barriers make Brazilian ethanol and its sugar expensive to buy.

Using carbohydrates instead of fossil-fuels to run cars is not a new idea. Henry Ford's first car was made to run on ethanol. So was the first spark-ignition car engine, developed by German Nicolas Otto in the second half of the 19th century. During World War II, the U.S., Brazil and other nations relied on ethanol to extend gasoline supplies. In the postwar period, however, gasoline was so plentiful and cheap that ethanol lost its allure.

'Strategic Challenge'

The first oil shock in 1973, sparked by an oil embargo amid war in the Middle East, rekindled interest. Months after Syrian and Egyptian tanks rolled into Israeli-held territory, the price of oil quadrupled. Few places were hit harder than Brazil, which imported 80% of its fuel at the time. Within months, Brazil's economy slid into recession. About 40% of its foreign-exchange income was used to import oil.

"We faced a clear strategic challenge: How would we develop without oil?" recalls Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho, a finance ministry official at the time who now heads the São Paulo state sugar-growers' federation.

In 1975, Brazil's military leader, Gen. Ernesto Geisel, ordered that the country's gasoline supply be mixed with 10% ethanol, a level Brazil steadily raised to 25% over the next five years. That meant the same amount of gasoline would last longer. It also allowed Brazil to pay for fuel with local currency, in the form of payments to farmers.

To help the nascent industry, the government gave sugar companies cut-rate loans to build ethanol plants and guaranteed prices for their product. Sugar companies were delighted with the new market, which helped when prices were low. The government also funded Urbano Ernesto Stumpf, an ethanol researcher at a Brazilian Air Force laboratory, who was developing a car that would run on ethanol alone.

In November 1976, three ethanol-powered cars created by Mr. Stumpf -- a Beetle, a Dodge and a Brazilian car called a Gurgel -- embarked on a 5,000 mile trip from the air force's research lab in the southeastern state of São Paulo to the northern city of Manaus in the heart of the Amazon. The trip, christened "The National Integration Rally," aimed to demonstrate to Brazilians that ethanol really worked. When the government ordered state-owned companies to test ethanol engines in their fleet, the São Paulo state telephone company converted 400 gasoline cars into ethanol ones. They displayed the logo: "Powered by Alcohol."

After the 1979 Iranian revolution caused the world's second oil-price shock, Brazil sped up its efforts, initiating what became known as the Proalcool program. In Brazil, ethanol is called "alcool" (pronounced OWL-coal).

Brazil's new leader, Gen. Joao Baptista Figueiredo, ordered sugar companies to ramp up production. He also required state-run oil giant Petrobras to make the fuel available at filling stations. Car companies received tax breaks to get ethanol-powered vehicles into showrooms. By the end of the year, Italian car maker Fiat SpA was offering an ethanol-only car for sale. Within a year, every foreign and domestic auto company in Brazil had followed suit.

Big Hit With Consumers

The cars were hard to start on cold mornings because ethanol burns at a higher temperature than gasoline. Creating a fuel with 10% ethanol makes little difference to a car's performance, but anything above that, researchers have found, can cause problems. The mixture can corrode metal engine parts because of its high water content, for example.

Nonetheless, the cars were big hits with consumers, largely because government price supports made the fuel 35% cheaper than gasoline at the pump. Ethanol also helps acceleration, an advantage in a country where Formula One racing is a national passion. By 1983, nine out of every 10 new cars sold in Brazil ran on ethanol alone.

While motorists grew fond of the made-in-Brazil fuel, there was a cost in the form of hefty government subsidies. Consulting firm Datagro, which counts Brazil's biggest sugar companies as its clients, estimates that Brazil spent at least $16 billion in 2005 dollars from 1979 to the mid-1990s on loans to sugar companies and price supports. The Datagro estimate doesn't include foregone revenue from tax breaks as well as other costs to consumers.

In 1986, after civilians replaced generals in Brazilian politics, the world price of oil plunged, endangering the government's pledge to keep the price of ethanol below that of gasoline. In the following years, the country was battered by hyperinflation, prompting the International Monetary Fund and other creditors to urge Brasilia to rein in spending. In 1989, President Jose Sarney started cutting ethanol price supports. Sales of ethanol cars plummeted and some Brazilians felt the entire experiment had been a waste.

But the ethanol market never dried up entirely, thanks largely to the decades of groundwork. Sugar companies continued to make the fuel and learned how to cut costs, encouraged by a state requirement that all gasoline be mixed with ethanol. Gas stations still offered the fuel, which is taxed at just nine cents a liter compared with about 42 cents a liter for gasoline, according to World Bank estimates.

While other countries were busy mapping the human genome, Brazilian scientists at the Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira, a research lab funded by sugar growers, were decoding the DNA of sugar cane. That helped them select varieties that were more resistant to drought and pests and yielded more sugar content.

The center is located in the heart of Brazil's sugar country, about two hours drive from São Paulo. Giant satellite images of sugar fields help researchers identify which variety will grow best in which part of the country, where to locate new fields and the best time to harvest. Over the past 20 years, the center has developed some 140 varieties of sugar, which has helped lower growing costs by more than 1% a year, according to Jaime Finguerut, the center's director of ethanol research.

Other improvements include using remains of processed cane to power sugar and ethanol plants, and using industrial waste from ethanol production to fertilize sugar fields. As a result, the productivity of Brazil's ethanol producers has steadily increased. In 1975, Brazil squeezed 2,000 liters, or about 520 gallons, of ethanol from a hectare, or nearly 2.5 acres, of sugar cane. Today, it's nearly 6,000 liters.

As gasoline prices soared in recent years, ethanol rebounded. By 2002, its price was again competitive with gasoline and old ethanol-only cars started recovering their prestige. Last year, thieves stole an ethanol-only, 1994 Ford Royale, owned by Francisco Baccaro Nigro, one of the engineers who helped develop ethanol-only cars. "I'm sure it's because ethanol is cheaper," Mr. Nigro says. "Thieves know this."

One last step remained. Some consumers were leery of buying ethanol cars because they weren't convinced the fuel would remain cheaper than gasoline.

A Cheaper Device

[Fernando Damasceno]

Fernando Damasceno, chief engineer at the Brazilian unit of Italian car parts company Magneti Marelli, thought the solution was to create cars that ran on either fuel equally well. Ford Motor Co. had offered flex-fuel cars in the U.S. since 1991 but the Brazilians thought its flex-fuel device expensive and cumbersome.

Mr. Damasceno created a cheaper device by programming a standard car computer to constantly calculate the mixture of ethanol versus gasoline in the tank and adjust the engine accordingly. In 2002, the team sold the device to Volkswagen, which introduced its flex-fuel Gol the next year. Mr. Damasceno's black box is now sold by five major car makers in Brazil. Even Ford's Brazil unit uses the Damasceno device.

In Ford's newest ad in Brazil, an indecisive young boy can't decide between a pair of brown and red shoes. As a teenager, he can't pick between a blonde and a brunette at a party. The ad ends with the young man pulling up to a gas station in his Ford Ecosport. The attendant asks: "Alcohol or gasoline?" The man, happy he doesn't have to choose, raises two fingers, signifying both.



Source:
The Wall Street Journal
 
JoeyGood said:
NAHHH TOO risky, Just hijack the tankers going to the gas stations, then you can hide them better instead of being stationary where they can find you.

OH SORRY WAS I THINKING OUTLOUD? :D

lets get r dun! ill bring the moonshine!
 
MrWilson said:
lets get r dun! ill bring the moonshine!


COOL! We could have a free gas day and have all of LVC line up to fill up thier tanks. :cool:
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top