Back to Results
Gas is now up to 3.65/gal for cheap regular, 4.35/gal for diesel.
This is gonna hurt.
Please enter a valid email address.
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.
No shitake.......I saw one station at $3.56 for 87 octane!!
Pity the fancy import car owners who have to put 93 octane in their tank.........$3.85!! MY friend has one of those Mercedez SUV things......it gets horrible gas mileage and she said it cost her $90 to fill the tank last week and she fills it every week to carpool the kids to all their activities......
I remember driving my first car when I was in high school.....gas was just a hari over $1.00 per gallon.....you would put in $10 and fill the tank......you didn't have a debit card back then to use.....and you never just filled the tank and paid after, you gave the attendant the cash and watched the pump and jerked it until you got it on right on the dollar. Ah, fond memories.
In 2004 I was paying $1.90 per gallon and it would cost under $40 to fill my minivan's tank.
(quavering voice) When I remember when we used to pump the oil out of the ground ourselves and refine it right there in the back yard. :-P
But seriously . . .
In high school it went to $0.51 per gallon and they were predicting the downfall of civilization as we knew it.
I drive a Volvo and have to use premium so it cost me $4.01 per gallon this past week to get a tank full.
Good thing I only have a five mile commute.
I filled up last night for $3.29/gal and it was still $50 to fill it up.
I've always tried to keep up on trends in real estate. I think that with all of the new technology, electric baseboard heat (coupled with solar panels) will be back very shortly. This is all due to the cost otherwise to heat your home.
Im averaging about 500 miles per month. Gas is around $3.55 for the no name brand stuff around here. $117 a barrel now.
and I thought this thread was about farting
$3.78, $3.79, $3.82 today at four stations on Rosemeed in Temple City. $3.75 At Arco in Pasadena on Foothill at Rosemeed. $3.90 at Union 76 on Foothill at Rosemeed.Diesel at Union 76 on Rosemeed in Temple city is $4.32 Diesel at Union 76 on Rosemeed in Pasadena is $4.78.
Gas is over $7/US Gal in Italy (for instance), and life goes on. Stop yer whining-- if you can't afford the gas, get something with high MPG next time, drive less, walk and bike when you can. It's not rocket science.
We need to put nuclear energy back on the table, or we're going to be attending dances in the Middle East for the better part of this century. I say give me some All-American reactors with quintuple back-up systems, park an electric car in my driveway, and I'm prepared to write off the sand countries and their tribal bloodbaths.
In coo's county Oregon, we are paying at 3.52 for regular and 4.32 for diesel. I am going to get a horse and buggy..
At least in Oregon, they pump the gas as part of that price! In CA we pay extra for that.
Why do so many people suggest nuclear fission every time someone mentions energy prices????
We still have no means of disposing of the radioactive waste. Worse, the radioactive waste is rarely "secured" thus can be used by anyone wanting to create problems. And worse still, the nuclear plants are designed for only 80 year life span at the outside; even with a complete "renovaton", we can't expect to get more than 120 years, and in many countries, the life span is only 40 years.
But how do you "retire" a nuclear power plant? There is only one solution; fill the entire thing in with concrete.
Very wasteful; big eyesore, still an environmental hazard.
And what about "safety risks"? Everyone knows they will go into "melt down" if they overheat and the rods are not able to be inserted in time. The cooling lines would only need a little sabatage to get the plant to overheat without anyone realising in time what is occuring.
Nuclear power plants should remain off the table until these kinds of issues can be resolved. Methaine gas from algee grown in custom roof containers would be a much better choice; and use of methaine fuel cells for cars and houses would make the usage clean and practical.
Might war and famine also be considered as "safety risks?" While we search in vain for a perfectly safe energy source (one capable of powering a nation, and not just a graduate student's VW) --- people will be actually (not just theoretically) suffering and dying. That should put nuclear energy on the table, yes.
France has been safely operating reactors for decades (now over 50 plants), making most of its own electricity from this source and exporting surplus to other nations (i.e., Italy) who have failed to produce power enough to meet their needs.
France has much more problems with nuclear reactors than any other country in the world. They are "recycling" nuclear waste, but the recycle product is even hotter than Uraninum 235. Thus it creates even more problems for disposing of the waste products. And they still have the problem with the 80 year life spans of the reactors and buildings.
We only look at the short term, never long term impacts. And as mentioned before, a small amount of sabotage is worse than any conventional war.
There is no shortage of energy; energy is conserved, it cannot be "destroyed". It is only a question of cost of getting it in a convienient form and transporting it to the location of need.
We have hundreds of options that are much more cost effective than nuclear fission. But as usual, choices are made based on politics and profits for a few.
You want to stop people from suffering and dying because they didn't have 500kw hours of electricity per year? (I don't know why they would die from that, but that is a different issue). Why don't you just stop driving 15,000 miles per year so that someone else can use that energy?
On the other hand, if Iran wants to build a Centrifuge to separate Uranium 235 from Unranium 238 so that they can use it in a new nuclear power plant, they should be allowed to do so since the only reason they want one is because the United States keeps insisting that they sell all their oil to foreigners (like the United States).
And why do you think a conventional war will cause as much damage as leaked radiation that will affect generations of people for hundreds of years? Or were you refering to when the "terorists" will detonate our own nuclear weapons right where they are already located since the methods of doing that is already public knowledge?
I'm also unclear as to why people think the answer is more nuclear plants. There has to be a more friendly way of creating energy- Solar, Wind, Water??????
I was just saying the other day- when I first got my license, gas was 1.50 or so a gallon, and cigarettes were 2.25. :) I quit smoking over a year ago, and I all but quit driving by myself now. Car pool. If we all did just that one thing, we'd have an overabundance of energy (gas) leftover. I drive a LOT, and I see everyone driving around ALONE. Most people I know have co-workers. Drive together. Unless they're jerks, you should have pleasant conversation to get you going before AND after work.
Since January, I've managed to get by on one tank of gas every two weeks (my pay period) except once. I never really paid attention before, but now it's just become too expensive.
As a people of habit, we don't change easily. But if we bribe both to reduce driving and bribe to use alternative or public transit, people's habits will change, including my own. Thus I still say a heavy gasoline tax that will be used to subsidize public transit; and then we remove all coin boxes and tickets and passes from public transit so that people can use it as much as they want without paying at the time. This will change behavior, but we need to change public perception first or the politicians could never pass such legislation.
The biggest advantage to a heavy tax on gasoline would be that people would demand alternative energy products, and thus they would be produced and distributed without subsidy since they could compete with a taxed gasoline. The gas stations have the capacity and space to sell alternative products; but they will never do so as long as the oil industry has a lock hold on them.
My preference is still methane gas used in fuel cells, produced by growing algee in roof top containers. Very efficient; doesn't take valuable Real Estate, high energy storage density, clean burning, and more than enough to supply the entire United States.
Another good idea is throwing waste celulouse product into a car tank with some carefully selected enzimes to break down the celulouse to hydrogen & carbon dioxide. When the hydrogen is used in an engine, or better yet, a fuel cell, it produces water, which would be fed back to the celulouse tank for producing more hydrogen.
OMG... Gas 5 days later... 3.85/gal, 4.39/gal diesel
3.85/3.65x6 (30 days) = 63% per mo inflation.
I BELIEVE this qualifies as 50%/mo hyperinflation? Can somebody check my math? Percents I stink at! lol
5.48% in five days
1.10% per day
32.88% in 30 days (if it continues at the same rate)
If that happens then regular will be $5.12 a gallon by the middle of May.
I don't actually think that's going to happen. That's the problem with just doing the math. It doesn't actually work that way in the real world.
Of course, if the Fed lowers interest rates on the 30th then prices could spike again.
In the long run it does not "profit" the energy companies to price gas so high that no one can afford it.
Chicago burbs 3.75 today. In the city 3.99.....
BTW, PBS aired a very interesting (and I thought, fair) program on "future cars," discussing alternatives to gasoline/diesel engines that various researchers are developing.
All-electric vehicles seemed to come out looking like the best hope, but there are still many years of work to do on battery tech and infrastructure. And obviously there would need to be increased electric power production.
The bacteria/cellulose hydrogen idea still seems to be in the nutty-Professor-with-small-grant phase.
"Of course, if the Fed lowers interest rates on the 30th then prices could spike again."
Exactly! The rise in the price of oil is directly connected to the devaluation of the dollar. European drivers have not seen their fuel costs go up nearly as much as we have in the U.S.
Good point. The same with Food. The 'world food crisis' is bunk. Our prices are going up because of inflation, they should tell the TRUTH.
That is too awesome Pinks!!!
"many years of work to do on battery tech and infrastructure"
Battery weight and density has been reduced to 1/4 using "spunge" technology; it also reduces leakage issues; but does not address lifespan or internal resistance at all. Nor does it address cost issues, nor the hazardous waste of lead & the acid. Nor recycling issues.
The celulous to hydrogen uses enzimes, not bacteria. The issue presently is finding the correct enzimes to increase the conversion rate. Present enzime selection does not produce hydrogen quickly enough to use in a typical vehicle.
Algee conversion to methane using bacteria is much more practical; but again, the trick is selecting the correct bacteria to avoid health risks, and to keep both the algee and bacteria healthy, maintaining the proper ratios.
Though fuel cell technology is still a ways off for mass production and economic viablity; it is much more practical than batteries since you don't "charge" them with electricity, you "fill" them with methane or hydrogen, and a chemical process internal to the cell converts the fuel directly to electricity. This increases energy storage density, reduces "fill" time (especially if you just "swap out"), and increases life span of the cell while reducing hazardous waste.
The way to get them here faster is not to sponsor government funded "research" and "subsidies", but rather to heavily tax gasoline since that would create demand and would allow other technologies to compete on a more even footing.
By the way, many experimental electric cars are using Nickle Metal Hydride batteries, as used in Lap top computers and digital cameras. The problem there is getting enough matched cells and getting them connected together. So far, it still has to be done by hand, it is still exceptionally expensive (even when imported from China), and it is hard to meet demand.
And still the lifespan is not that good and the weight is still high for the energy stored.
I've been comparing costs between the different grades; it is hard to believe we move up from LOL to the other two grades with only 10 cent increments.
What I get a kick out of is that people don't want to buy a TDI like mine because of diesel prices... yet I get 45mpg. So I pay a little more for more expensive, cheaper to make, gas. I get a lot better bang for my buck! lol
Please enter text in the "Enter the text to display" field.
Please enter text in the "Enter URL" field.
Please enter a valid URL.
Please insert a video embed only
Zillow Advice depends on each member to keep it a safe, fun, and positive place. If you see abuse, flag it. More on our Good Neighbor Policy.