|
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Paid $2.91 at a normally competitive filling station for unleaded 92
octane yesterday. Looks like a repeat of the 2005 fuel pricing may be in store. Those *******s. But I guess you can't blame them, since most of the increase last year went straight to the Record Profit Bottom Line of the big oil companies and their stock prices have now been adjusted to take those profits into account. Failure to reproduce the same type of earnings this year would have a negative impact on future stock values, and we certainly couldn't have that, could we? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
|
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
|
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Given the ungodly profits, etc., and the daily fluctuations (usually
upwards) I believe there is a special place in Hell for the oil people. Ray wrote in message oups.com... Paid $2.91 at a normally competitive filling station for unleaded 92 octane yesterday. Looks like a repeat of the 2005 fuel pricing may be in store. Those *******s. But I guess you can't blame them, since most of the increase last year went straight to the Record Profit Bottom Line of the big oil companies and their stock prices have now been adjusted to take those profits into account. Failure to reproduce the same type of earnings this year would have a negative impact on future stock values, and we certainly couldn't have that, could we? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Cashed in all my energy stocks ... I myself don't know what's holding
this energy market up. But I do know I've now got the bucks to gas the boat ... and the jeep ... for a few more years. Must confess, I did pick up some mining stocks ... that price of copper is just too tempting ... we'll see. |
Quote:
But,of course. Why would they not move up this time of the year. It's only logical. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: Maybe if you had some real cars, then you wouldn't have that problem. Most of us have never seen a "real" car, but here is one: http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/bugatti_veyron.asp |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
|
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:18:30 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: I've got oil stocks and they are looking VERY good. WHOO HOO!! Yes indeed. Petro service stocks are next if you believe in following the flow of money. You can only sell the oil once, then you have to replace it. NBR, SLB, OIH, etc. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... wrote in oups.com: Looks like a repeat of the 2005 fuel pricing may be in store. Those *******s. But I guess you can't blame them, since most of the increase last year went straight to the Record Profit Bottom Line of the big oil companies and their stock prices have now been adjusted to take those profits into account. Failure to reproduce the same type of earnings this year would have a negative impact on future stock values, and we certainly couldn't have that, could we? Gas prices rise in Spring and Summer due to the multiple formulations which differ from state to state during warm months to meet emissions requirements. And due to demand when competition price point curve breaks down due to demand exceeding supply. This is exasperated by not having enough refinery capacity for the summer peak gas demand months. I hate it too. And if I were the one making the decision to build or not build a new refinery I'd have pause...Why build a new one for the peak demand of 3 months a year. Like the electric companies when they have problems with peak demand, rather than expand on their generator capacity they encourage us to conserve. Then when we start suffering brownouts and demand better service they request a rate hike to build a new generator, and guess what, they get one. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:55:28 -0500, "RayB" wrote: Given the ungodly profits, etc., and the daily fluctuations (usually upwards) I believe there is a special place in Hell for the oil people. I've got oil stocks and they are looking VERY good. WHOO HOO!! Señior Contrarío has spoken! :-) |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:55:28 -0500, "RayB" wrote: Given the ungodly profits, etc., and the daily fluctuations (usually upwards) I believe there is a special place in Hell for the oil people. I've got oil stocks and they are looking VERY good. WHOO HOO!! Señior Contrarío has spoken! :-) The oil companiens are only throwing off about 10% profit and are not doing any better profit percentage wise than most other businesses. The perception of those buying and selling stocks is what really matters. The run up of the oil company stocks has already occured. You should have bought your oil company stocks 15 months ago. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:20:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:55:28 -0500, "RayB" wrote: Given the ungodly profits, etc., and the daily fluctuations (usually upwards) I believe there is a special place in Hell for the oil people. I've got oil stocks and they are looking VERY good. WHOO HOO!! Señior Contrarío has spoken! :-) Si - mucho dinero. WHOO HOO!! You might want to take a peek at this: PFACP Very little price movement. Buy it for the dividend. Pretty solid, unless people all over the country stop buying Birds Eye frozen foods, or every farm in upstate New York is bulldozed and turned into a parking lot. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:37:11 -0500, "Bert Robbins" wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:55:28 -0500, "RayB" wrote: Given the ungodly profits, etc., and the daily fluctuations (usually upwards) I believe there is a special place in Hell for the oil people. I've got oil stocks and they are looking VERY good. WHOO HOO!! Señior Contrarío has spoken! :-) The oil companiens are only throwing off about 10% profit and are not doing any better profit percentage wise than most other businesses. The perception of those buying and selling stocks is what really matters. The run up of the oil company stocks has already occured. You should have bought your oil company stocks 15 months ago. Even better if you bought three years ago. Agreed. When you see the train coming you can climb aboard the engine rather than running to catch the caboose. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
... There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years. Why not? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Fred Dehl wrote: There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years. And the number of oil refineries is actually in decline. Most of the refineries that have been closed have been voluntarily closed by the big oil companies. In fact, there was a case last year or so when Shell announced that it was going to close a refinery. A small oil company stepped forward and offered to pay fair market value to Shell for the refinery assets. Shell refused to sell, opting instead to spend tens of millions of dollars dismantling the refinery rather than accept tens of millions of dollars in a sale. The small oil company took Shell to court to try and force them to sell- I'm not sure how the case was resolved. In any event, the situation illustrates that Shell felt there was more profit in closing the refinery (and creating a "shortage" that would justify higher prices) than in selling it to a competitor (who would not contribute to a "shortage" and would in fact tend to depress prices through fair competition). When prices were at their peak last year, there were frequent comments from Limbaugh, etc, that it was because "The liberal environmentalists have been fighting the oil companies every time the companies want to put up a new refinery!" I think the air went out of that balloon when it was pretty well established that no oil company has even sought a permit for a new refinery in the US for several decades now. The basic problem is that there is no meaningful competition in the oil business. The free enterprise model is broken. Let's say that I was in the business of selling center console fishing boats, and my market research showed that I could expect to peddle 25 new boats a year in my market area. If I wanted to do business like the oil companies, I'd order only 17 boats, proclaim a "shortage", and demand a premium price from each buyer as I let each one know they were just darn lucky to be able to buy a boat at all. If I jack the price up high enough, the profits on those 17 boats would exceed the profits realized on 25 boats sold at competitive prices. However, in the real world where there is actual competition, my business plan to create a false shortage would fail. Somebody selling another boat across town would realize "Gould is driving away prospects with his high prices, so instead of the 25 boats *we* normally order in a year this year we'll order 33. We may have to discount them a little to be sure we don't get stuck with a lot of inventory in the fall...." That's how the system is supposed to work, but the oil companies seem to be in collusion rather than competition these days. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years. Why not? Envirofreaks. In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a nuclear power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a meltdown, there really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was at risk. They purchased a number of local officials to make sure all the reviews & permits went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island Expressway was one long traffic jam for almost its entire length, even in the middle of the night. Opponents of the plan pointed out that evacuation would be impossible. The project's paid supporters (who were later shamed out of office) said that boats would be one solution. To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map of Long Island before you respond: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...1 &name=&qty= Zoom out to be sure you understand. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
|
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
|
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:30:55 GMT, Fred Dehl wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years. Why not? Envirofreaks. Wrong. No applications since 1973.... until 2003 and now three plants are being considered under "Early Site Permits." Personally, I'm really unimpressed. I pay two different electric bills. Coal generated power is $06.7337/kWh and nuclear generated power is $09.054/kWh. I'm not enthused enough with technology to pay an extra 35%, well, just because. As an added bonus, I can worry about terrorism (airport is less than two miles from the reactor) or accidental nuclear disaster. As an added incentive, in case of disaster and in order to enhance my sense of security, I (and everybody else) have to drive *towards* the nuclear plant (within a couple of miles) to exit the island from a single bridge. Not only am I a pragmatist, I can remember Three Mile Island.... and all of their assurances that nothing serious was wrong, even as radioactive steam was escaping and the core reached 5000 degrees... In fact, as I rethink this.... it is likely that power companies have not, for 30 years, wanted to face the possibility of another 1 billion plus dollar cleanup. Now, with a new and younger generation that didn't face the economic reality of that most uniquely human trait... mistakes, perhaps they will try the same thing and expect a different result. I think Einstein called that insanity! I was just reading that as a result of the Chernobyl accident, there is still soil in Great Britain that's too far gone for livestock to graze on. So much for NOYB and his "nuke 'em all" erectile dysfunction remedy. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years. Why not? Envirofreaks. In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a nuclear power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a meltdown, there really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was at risk. They purchased a number of local officials to make sure all the reviews & permits went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island Expressway was one long traffic jam for almost its entire length, even in the middle of the night. Opponents of the plan pointed out that evacuation would be impossible. The project's paid supporters (who were later shamed out of office) said that boats would be one solution. To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map of Long Island before you respond: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...1 &name=&qty= Zoom out to be sure you understand. Where was the reactor that spewed radiation back in 1978/1979?? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Don White" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years. Why not? Envirofreaks. In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a nuclear power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a meltdown, there really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was at risk. They purchased a number of local officials to make sure all the reviews & permits went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island Expressway was one long traffic jam for almost its entire length, even in the middle of the night. Opponents of the plan pointed out that evacuation would be impossible. The project's paid supporters (who were later shamed out of office) said that boats would be one solution. To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map of Long Island before you respond: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...1 &name=&qty= Zoom out to be sure you understand. Where was the reactor that spewed radiation back in 1978/1979?? Pennsylvania. Three Mile Island. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years. Why not? Envirofreaks. In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a nuclear power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a meltdown, there really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was at risk. They purchased a number of local officials to make sure all the reviews & permits went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island Expressway was one long traffic jam for almost its entire length, even in the middle of the night. Opponents of the plan pointed out that evacuation would be impossible. The project's paid supporters (who were later shamed out of office) said that boats would be one solution. To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map of Long Island before you respond: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...ountry=us&new= 1&name=&qty= Charlotte Observer, March 17, Page D1, regarding Duke Energy's proposal to build a nuclear plant: Environmental group Greenpeace is opposed to all new nuclear power plants, said Lisa Finaldi, who is campaigns director for Greenpeace U.S. and is based in Raleigh. "It's a top priority for Greenpeace in the world, not just the U.S.," she said. To review: You: - found ONE incident - from THIRTY YEARS AGO - about ONE plant. I: - quoted the campaigns director of an envirofreaks group - from LAST WEEK - about ALL nuclear power plants EVERYWHERE in the world. Not even a fair fight. Sometimes these envirofreaks are right. How about building them dangerously close to earthquake faults? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... wrote in oups.com: I'd order only 17 boats, proclaim a "shortage", and demand a premium price from each buyer as I let each one know they were just darn lucky to be able to buy a boat at all. If I jack the price up high enough, the profits on those 17 boats would exceed the profits realized on 25 boats sold at competitive prices. However, in the real world where there is actual competition, my business plan to create a false shortage would fail. Somebody selling another boat across town would realize "Gould is driving away prospects with his high prices, so instead of the 25 boats *we* normally order in a year this year we'll order 33. We may have to discount them a little to be sure we don't get stuck with a lot of inventory in the fall...." That's how the system is supposed to work Yes. Thank-you for exposing the fallacy of "predatory pricing". Following from that I must conclude you're a big supporter of Wal-Mart. but the oil companies seem to be in collusion rather than competition these days. The problem is that the oil co's are all buying the same raw material from the same producers and therefore ALL of their prices are going to rise and fall in tandem. This looks like collusion. Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR. ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated this. If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak. A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... There hasn't been a new nuclear plant in the US in over 30 years. Why not? Envirofreaks. In the 1970s, Long Island Lighting Company began construction of a nuclear power plant in Shoreham. They claimed that if there was a meltdown, there really wouldn't be a problem evacuating anyone who was at risk. They purchased a number of local officials to make sure all the reviews & permits went smoothly. At the time, the Long Island Expressway was one long traffic jam for almost its entire length, even in the middle of the night. Opponents of the plan pointed out that evacuation would be impossible. The project's paid supporters (who were later shamed out of office) said that boats would be one solution. To make a long story short, the project was halted, never to be touched again. Would you say its opponents were freaks? Take a good look at a map of Long Island before you respond: http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?ad...1 &name=&qty= Zoom out to be sure you understand. You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why hasn't Seabrook come on line. What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR! |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... wrote in oups.com: I'd order only 17 boats, proclaim a "shortage", and demand a premium price from each buyer as I let each one know they were just darn lucky to be able to buy a boat at all. If I jack the price up high enough, the profits on those 17 boats would exceed the profits realized on 25 boats sold at competitive prices. However, in the real world where there is actual competition, my business plan to create a false shortage would fail. Somebody selling another boat across town would realize "Gould is driving away prospects with his high prices, so instead of the 25 boats *we* normally order in a year this year we'll order 33. We may have to discount them a little to be sure we don't get stuck with a lot of inventory in the fall...." That's how the system is supposed to work Yes. Thank-you for exposing the fallacy of "predatory pricing". Following from that I must conclude you're a big supporter of Wal-Mart. but the oil companies seem to be in collusion rather than competition these days. The problem is that the oil co's are all buying the same raw material from the same producers and therefore ALL of their prices are going to rise and fall in tandem. This looks like collusion. Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR. ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated this. If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak. A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high. What is your solution to the worlds energy problems? And yes, you have to address it as a global problem. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why hasn't Seabrook come on line. What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR! Seabrook has been on-line since 1990. RCE |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
RCE wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why hasn't Seabrook come on line. What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR! Seabrook has been on-line since 1990. RCE Don't mind Bert. He's always a dollar short & a day late. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Don White" wrote in message ... RCE wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why hasn't Seabrook come on line. What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR! Seabrook has been on-line since 1990. RCE Don't mind Bert. He's always a dollar short & a day late. He may be confusing the second reactor that it was originally supposed to have. It got too expensive trying to get the permits and licenses, so they flushed the second reactor plan. It is currently operating on one reactor. RCE |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"RCE" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why hasn't Seabrook come on line. What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR! Seabrook has been on-line since 1990. Really, I was up that way this past summer and somebody, my mother, told me it was off-line. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "RCE" wrote in message ... "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... You are talking about one nuclear plant. Why haven't we built others? Why hasn't Seabrook come on line. What is the alternative to nuclear plants? ANWR! Seabrook has been on-line since 1990. Really, I was up that way this past summer and somebody, my mother, told me it was off-line. It may have been shut down for routine maintenance or refueling. The Pilgrim Plant in Plymouth, MA has to be shut down every 2 years for refueling. The Seabrook Station is owned, believe it or not, by Florida Power and Light. One of our former Florida neighbors (and Mrs.E.'s horse riding buddy) is a VP in FPL. She travels to Seabrook on a regular basis to see what's happening, I guess. My next door neighbor here in MA is an engineer at the Plymouth plant. I asked him why nuclear powered aircraft carriers which are powered for life with the initial fueling can last for 40 years, yet a nuke power plant has to be refueled every couple of years. The answer is the quality or purity of the uranium fuel. Power plants use fuel that is only about 2.5 percent of something. Nuke Navy ship's fuel is in the high 90 percent range. RCE |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Charlotte Observer, March 17, Page D1, regarding Duke Energy's proposal to build a nuclear plant: Environmental group Greenpeace is opposed to all new nuclear power plants, said Lisa Finaldi, who is campaigns director for Greenpeace U.S. and is based in Raleigh. "It's a top priority for Greenpeace in the world, not just the U.S.," she said. To review: You: - found ONE incident - from THIRTY YEARS AGO - about ONE plant. I: - quoted the campaigns director of an envirofreaks group - from LAST WEEK - about ALL nuclear power plants EVERYWHERE in the world. Not even a fair fight. Sometimes these envirofreaks are right. How about building them dangerously close to earthquake faults? What a surprise - in the face of fact you revert to hysterical hypotheticals. If we're lucky yours will be the next boat Greenpeace bombs. Idiot. PG&E **wanted** to build one 75 miles from the San Andreas fault about 25 years ago. Idea crushed. What friggin' world are YOU living in? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR. ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated this. If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak. A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high. So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan? Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet? What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled power plants? |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:18:51 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
Idiot. PG&E **wanted** to build one 75 miles from the San Andreas fault about 25 years ago. Idea crushed. What friggin' world are YOU living in? Interestingly, a Japanese court just shut down Japan's newest nuclear plant for the very same reason. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4839970.stm |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:16:07 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
We don't need more nukes - we need a comprehensive domestic energy policy that disallows this kind of abuse of the system to occur. Do we even have a comprehensive domestic energy policy? I'm not overly nuclear adverse. It provides 20% of our electrical needs, now, with some 100 odd plants. I find it mildly amusing, that the lack of new plants is blamed on "envirofreaks", when the most obvious reasons are economic. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:39:35 -0500, thunder wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 05:18:51 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Idiot. PG&E **wanted** to build one 75 miles from the San Andreas fault about 25 years ago. Idea crushed. What friggin' world are YOU living in? Interestingly, a Japanese court just shut down Japan's newest nuclear plant for the very same reason. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4839970.stm We've got to get real about energy needs - in particular electricity transmission. We've got a brandy new, three gas-turbine power plant down in Killingly which was built by PG&E as an investment during the hey day of power "deregulation". As PG&E went bankrupt, the banks took it over and they only run it two days a week - in theory because natural gas prices are too high. As designed, all three turbines can make up to $185,000 each per day on $485,000 total operating costs. $555,000 (approx) made above and beyond what it costs to operate the plant even at these elevated gas prices per day. Per day. Obviously they run the plant to just maintain costs. The banks who hold the property claim they are losing money. Letting banks run anything but banks is goofy. There's a foreclosed house down the street from me. The bank can't even figure out how to keep the lawn mowed. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR. ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated this. If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak. A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high. So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan? Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet? What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled power plants? Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the ****ING thread. Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering in your middle back pocket, I'd reason. I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most (not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their size & shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess of the boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so much fuel. They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's different from that of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it meets two of the buyers' needs, without addressing the needs of buyers who do not exist. Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR. ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated this. If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak. A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high. So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan? Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet? What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled power plants? Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the ****ING thread. Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering in your middle back pocket, I'd reason. I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most (not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their size & shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess of the boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so much fuel. They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's different from that of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it meets two of the buyers' needs, without addressing the needs of buyers who do not exist. Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it. That's not a plan it is at best a desire to control behavior and dictate needs to others. With the projected increase of automobiles, specifically the gas fueled ones, around the entire world how will this reduce the CO2 and other bad emissions form automobiles. Oh, accepting the Kyoto Protocols is not a valid answer to the question becasue it is a wealth re-distribution plan under the guise of a global energy "plan." The people of this world are not going to take a giant technological or convienece leap backwards. Your solutions have to solve the current and forseeable future energy needs. |
Fuel prices moving up, just in time for spring boating and driving?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Obviously the solution is to increase the number of producers, and have them under US control rather than beholden to the instability and hostility of foreign regions. That means, at a MINIMUM, offshore and ANWR. ANWR would barely make a dent. Even the oil companies have stated this. If you prefer no dent at all to any dent, you're an envirofreak. A dent is nice, but sometimes the cost is too high. So you'd rather write your checks to the Bin Laden clan? Let's see...you wrote this at 9:26 PM. Cocktails hadn't worn off yet? What percentage of this country's electricity comes from oil-fueled power plants? Who's talking about electricity, nimrod? Check the ****ing TITLE of the ****ING thread. Oh, and where are your answers to the questions from the other poster about what YOU would to solve the global energy crisis? Still festering in your middle back pocket, I'd reason. I've already presented some workable ideas here in the past. You weren't around. Briefly, my first move would be to strongarm the car makers. Most (not all) people who buy an SUV do so for reasons related only to their size & shape, not their power train. Mommies want the safety or roominess of the boxy vehicle. They have no need for a power train that eats so much fuel. They couldn't even describe the power train and how it's different from that of a sedan. The product needs to be changed so it meets two of the buyers' needs, without addressing the needs of buyers who do not exist. Guess what? Ford seems to be doing it. That's not a plan it is at best a desire to control behavior and dictate needs to others. With the projected increase of automobiles, specifically the gas fueled ones, around the entire world how will this reduce the CO2 and other bad emissions form automobiles. Oh, accepting the Kyoto Protocols is not a valid answer to the question becasue it is a wealth re-distribution plan under the guise of a global energy "plan." The people of this world are not going to take a giant technological or convienece leap backwards. Your solutions have to solve the current and forseeable future energy needs. Ford's development of a hybrid SUV is an attempt to control behavior? Please explain this conclusion. They'll still be selling the "regular" kind, for people who actually need a truck-style power train, but sales of those will be reduced to levels they were at 30 years ago, when they were mostly purchased by people who needed the 4WD and the gear ratio. Don't get mired in that paragraph. Explain your conclusion. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com