http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080806/NEWS/808060326/-1/NEWS01
Oil prices could cause crisis for Maine homeowners
By Amy Phalon
yorkweekly@seacoastonline.com
August 06, 2008 6:00 AM
How high will they go? It's the question everyone is asking these days as crude oil prices climb, the average price of heating oil in Maine being $4.42 a gallon as of Tuesday.
"We are headed for what might be a crisis situation this winter," Town Manager Rob Yandow said at a recent selectmen's meeting, during which he discussed the town's intention to develop a program to offer heating assistance to households in need.
According to University of Maine professor of economics Jonathan Rubin, "Eighty percent of Maine's homes are heated by oil."
A large percentage of others are heated by propane, natural gas or kerosene, which are also at record prices. The vast majority of Maine households are facing a very expensive winter.
"This is obviously a very difficult time for consumers," said John Peters, president of Downeast Energy and Building Supply, which serves households in York. "It is unprecedented; the speed with which it is increasing. It is draining a lot of cash out of the economy."
While there is no argument that fuel prices have increased rapidly, the reason prices are climbing and whether they will fall again is unclear.
"This is an unprecedented time where even experts don't know what's driving all the forces," Rubin said. "There is no consensus on whether or not the price is going to go up or come down."
This uncertainty is what has Rubin worried.
"It's going to be hardest on households on fixed and low incomes."
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
The future of diesel/fuel oil prices.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=959
Posted on Aug. 07, 2008By Robert Bryce
The Diesel Crunch: Why Diesel Prices Are Skyrocketing
Back in October 2005, I wrote an article for Salon.com predicting that U.S. diesel prices would hit $4 or $5 per gallon within 18 months. I’m not recalling that story to brag. I rarely predict energy prices. And my estimate for when prices would hit $4 was a little premature. (It took about 30 months to break that barrier.) But it’s worth noting the factors I cited in that column, written shortly after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I wrote:
The coming diesel disaster will be caused by several other things that have nothing to do with the weather. Those factors include stringent new federal regulations on sulfur content in motor fuel, a global shortage of refining capacity, and soaring demand for diesel, both in the United States and around the globe.
Today, those factors are not only still in play, they are even more acute. Add in two others – the growing refining imbalance in the European market and the U.S. ethanol mandates – and you have a recipe for sustained high diesel prices.
Given those conditions, I am going to make another prediction: for the next 5 to 8 years, diesel fuel will sell at a significant premium over gasoline. And by significant, I mean in the range of 15 to 30 percent. (In late July, according to the Energy Information Administration, diesel was selling for about 15 percent more than regular conventional gasoline.) Now that I’ve gone out on a limb, let me explain why diesel prices will remain high.
The first problem, not surprisingly, is due to government regulations. In 2006, U.S. refiners were required to meet the new federal standards for ultra-low sulfur diesel (U.L.S.D.). Designed to improve America’s air quality, these standards required fuel manufacturers to reduce their diesel’s sulfur to 15 parts per million, from 500 ppm. But in reality, to account for sulfur contamination that might occur during transport (by truck, tank, or pipeline) the refiners had to produce diesel with a sulfur content of 6 ppm at most. Going from 500 ppm down to 6 ppm is a reduction of about 99 percent. And that huge reduction requires refiners to do more hydro treating, which means they have to produce more hydrogen, which requires additional equipment, which raises costs and reduces output.
The U.L.S.D. mandates have added yet more complexity to the motor fuel supply chain, and that complexity increases costs. While refiners are producing U.L.S.D., they are also producing conventional diesel that meets the old 500 ppm standard. Thus, the U.L.S.D. must be segregated from the conventional diesel. Add in state-specific blends of diesel and the situation becomes even more complex. California, Minnesota, and Texas are all implementing regulations that will require specific diesel blends for their states. (For instance, Minnesota is requiring refineries to add 2 percent bio diesel to their product.) Segregating these boutique diesel blends, U.L.S.D., and high-sulfur blends means more tanks and pipes, which means more capital investment, which means higher costs.
In 2005, I mentioned the global shortage of refining capacity as a cause of higher diesel prices. This is still true. And while new refineries in Asia are helping to meet demand there, Europe continues to suffer from a lack of the complex refineries that can produce low-sulfur motor fuel as well as handle lower-quality crudes that, given the right upgrading equipment, could be turned into usable motor fuel. This shortage is due in part to the E.U.’s strict environmental regulations, which have slowed refiners’ upgrade efforts. That, in turn, will leave them more dependent on imports of U.L.S.D. According to the Mediterranean Energy Observatory, by 2010 the E.U. will need 100 million tons per year of U.L.S.D. and 40 million tons per year of ultra-low sulfur gasoline.
There is also a shortage of refining capacity in South America. And that has led to increasing exports of diesel from the U.S. For instance, in April, U.S. diesel fuel exports averaged 387,000 barrels per day. That’s an almost seven-fold increase from the 59,000 bbl/d exported in April 2007. (Overall, refined product exports have also increased. During the first four months of this year, refiners exported a record 1.6 million barrels per day, a 33 percent increase over the year-earlier levels. And February exports exceeded 1.8 MMbbl/d/.)
Those exports are indicative of a booming global diesel demand. On July 1, the International Energy Agency released its medium-term oil market report, which said that the “bulk of oil demand growth” worldwide “will be concentrated in transportation fuels.” It stated that while global gasoline demand is growing, “distillates (jet fuel, kerosene, diesel, and other gas oil) have become – and will remain – the main growth drivers of world oil demand.” The agency published a graphic that projects stunning demand growth for distillates. Between 2002 and 2013, the I.E.A. expects distillate demand to increase nearly five-fold.
At the report’s presentation in Madrid, Lawrence Eagles, its editor, told reporters, “It’s going to be very hard to keep pace with growth in middle distillate demand.” He went on to say, “At the moment it’s demand for diesel that is driving the increased consumption.” Furthermore, Eagles pointed to the lack of upgrading capacity in many refineries as a reason global demand for crude is rising, as some refiners are aiming to increase their diesel output. The result is that “you are consuming far more oil than you otherwise would.”
While all of those factors are important, perhaps the biggest reason gasoline can be expected to sell for substantially less than diesel over the next half decade or so is the refining imbalance in Europe. Simply put, European refineries are producing too much gasoline and not enough diesel. And they are doing so as European gasoline demand is declining and diesel demand is growing. This increasing demand is largely the result of the “dieselization” of the European auto market. About 30 percent of all vehicles on the road in Europe are now diesels. And by 2015, if current sales patterns continue, about 40 percent of the European motor fleet will be diesel powered.
The result of this shift toward diesel autos is easy to predict. European refiners will have to sell their excess gasoline to the closest market that has lots of gasoline-fueled cars and few diesels – and that means the U.S. But there’s a problem with that plan: gasoline demand in the U.S. isn’t growing. In fact, domestic gasoline consumption dropped by 1.7 percent during the first six months of this year. And analysts expect little growth in U.S. gasoline demand over the next decade or so. Indeed, according to the Mediterranean Energy Observatory, by 2015, Europe will likely be producing some 12 million tons of excess gasoline per year, but U.S. imports will only grow by about 2 million tons.
And if gasoline supplies exceed demand by such a wide margin, it can be assumed that gasoline prices will be depressed, particularly when compared to diesel’s.
This imbalance between gasoline and diesel is being exacerbated by a familiar boondoggle: the ethanol scam. At the same time that European and American refiners face an excess of gasoline, the ethanol mandates are adding more fuel into the U.S. gasoline pool. This year, U.S. corn distilleries will likely produce about 9 billion gallons of ethanol, and every gallon of that product makes gasoline more plentiful, while doing nothing to slow demand for the products that we need most, namely middle distillates like jet fuel and diesel.
All of these factors have led European analysts to expect that the disparity between gasoline and diesel will continue for several years to come. Jean-François Larivé, a technical coordinator with the European Oil Company Organization for Environment, Health and Safety, participated in a 2007 study of the refining imbalance problem. In early July, he told me that the trend now underway “cannot reverse because all the new demand is coming from diesel.” As for the pricing disparity between gasoline and diesel, he said that it may even “get worse.”
In other words, the diesel crunch has just started. And the inflationary effects of the higher costs of diesel fuel are going to be felt throughout the U.S. economy (and the global economy) for years to come. .
Posted on Aug. 07, 2008By Robert Bryce
The Diesel Crunch: Why Diesel Prices Are Skyrocketing
Back in October 2005, I wrote an article for Salon.com predicting that U.S. diesel prices would hit $4 or $5 per gallon within 18 months. I’m not recalling that story to brag. I rarely predict energy prices. And my estimate for when prices would hit $4 was a little premature. (It took about 30 months to break that barrier.) But it’s worth noting the factors I cited in that column, written shortly after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I wrote:
The coming diesel disaster will be caused by several other things that have nothing to do with the weather. Those factors include stringent new federal regulations on sulfur content in motor fuel, a global shortage of refining capacity, and soaring demand for diesel, both in the United States and around the globe.
Today, those factors are not only still in play, they are even more acute. Add in two others – the growing refining imbalance in the European market and the U.S. ethanol mandates – and you have a recipe for sustained high diesel prices.
Given those conditions, I am going to make another prediction: for the next 5 to 8 years, diesel fuel will sell at a significant premium over gasoline. And by significant, I mean in the range of 15 to 30 percent. (In late July, according to the Energy Information Administration, diesel was selling for about 15 percent more than regular conventional gasoline.) Now that I’ve gone out on a limb, let me explain why diesel prices will remain high.
The first problem, not surprisingly, is due to government regulations. In 2006, U.S. refiners were required to meet the new federal standards for ultra-low sulfur diesel (U.L.S.D.). Designed to improve America’s air quality, these standards required fuel manufacturers to reduce their diesel’s sulfur to 15 parts per million, from 500 ppm. But in reality, to account for sulfur contamination that might occur during transport (by truck, tank, or pipeline) the refiners had to produce diesel with a sulfur content of 6 ppm at most. Going from 500 ppm down to 6 ppm is a reduction of about 99 percent. And that huge reduction requires refiners to do more hydro treating, which means they have to produce more hydrogen, which requires additional equipment, which raises costs and reduces output.
The U.L.S.D. mandates have added yet more complexity to the motor fuel supply chain, and that complexity increases costs. While refiners are producing U.L.S.D., they are also producing conventional diesel that meets the old 500 ppm standard. Thus, the U.L.S.D. must be segregated from the conventional diesel. Add in state-specific blends of diesel and the situation becomes even more complex. California, Minnesota, and Texas are all implementing regulations that will require specific diesel blends for their states. (For instance, Minnesota is requiring refineries to add 2 percent bio diesel to their product.) Segregating these boutique diesel blends, U.L.S.D., and high-sulfur blends means more tanks and pipes, which means more capital investment, which means higher costs.
In 2005, I mentioned the global shortage of refining capacity as a cause of higher diesel prices. This is still true. And while new refineries in Asia are helping to meet demand there, Europe continues to suffer from a lack of the complex refineries that can produce low-sulfur motor fuel as well as handle lower-quality crudes that, given the right upgrading equipment, could be turned into usable motor fuel. This shortage is due in part to the E.U.’s strict environmental regulations, which have slowed refiners’ upgrade efforts. That, in turn, will leave them more dependent on imports of U.L.S.D. According to the Mediterranean Energy Observatory, by 2010 the E.U. will need 100 million tons per year of U.L.S.D. and 40 million tons per year of ultra-low sulfur gasoline.
There is also a shortage of refining capacity in South America. And that has led to increasing exports of diesel from the U.S. For instance, in April, U.S. diesel fuel exports averaged 387,000 barrels per day. That’s an almost seven-fold increase from the 59,000 bbl/d exported in April 2007. (Overall, refined product exports have also increased. During the first four months of this year, refiners exported a record 1.6 million barrels per day, a 33 percent increase over the year-earlier levels. And February exports exceeded 1.8 MMbbl/d/.)
Those exports are indicative of a booming global diesel demand. On July 1, the International Energy Agency released its medium-term oil market report, which said that the “bulk of oil demand growth” worldwide “will be concentrated in transportation fuels.” It stated that while global gasoline demand is growing, “distillates (jet fuel, kerosene, diesel, and other gas oil) have become – and will remain – the main growth drivers of world oil demand.” The agency published a graphic that projects stunning demand growth for distillates. Between 2002 and 2013, the I.E.A. expects distillate demand to increase nearly five-fold.
At the report’s presentation in Madrid, Lawrence Eagles, its editor, told reporters, “It’s going to be very hard to keep pace with growth in middle distillate demand.” He went on to say, “At the moment it’s demand for diesel that is driving the increased consumption.” Furthermore, Eagles pointed to the lack of upgrading capacity in many refineries as a reason global demand for crude is rising, as some refiners are aiming to increase their diesel output. The result is that “you are consuming far more oil than you otherwise would.”
While all of those factors are important, perhaps the biggest reason gasoline can be expected to sell for substantially less than diesel over the next half decade or so is the refining imbalance in Europe. Simply put, European refineries are producing too much gasoline and not enough diesel. And they are doing so as European gasoline demand is declining and diesel demand is growing. This increasing demand is largely the result of the “dieselization” of the European auto market. About 30 percent of all vehicles on the road in Europe are now diesels. And by 2015, if current sales patterns continue, about 40 percent of the European motor fleet will be diesel powered.
The result of this shift toward diesel autos is easy to predict. European refiners will have to sell their excess gasoline to the closest market that has lots of gasoline-fueled cars and few diesels – and that means the U.S. But there’s a problem with that plan: gasoline demand in the U.S. isn’t growing. In fact, domestic gasoline consumption dropped by 1.7 percent during the first six months of this year. And analysts expect little growth in U.S. gasoline demand over the next decade or so. Indeed, according to the Mediterranean Energy Observatory, by 2015, Europe will likely be producing some 12 million tons of excess gasoline per year, but U.S. imports will only grow by about 2 million tons.
And if gasoline supplies exceed demand by such a wide margin, it can be assumed that gasoline prices will be depressed, particularly when compared to diesel’s.
This imbalance between gasoline and diesel is being exacerbated by a familiar boondoggle: the ethanol scam. At the same time that European and American refiners face an excess of gasoline, the ethanol mandates are adding more fuel into the U.S. gasoline pool. This year, U.S. corn distilleries will likely produce about 9 billion gallons of ethanol, and every gallon of that product makes gasoline more plentiful, while doing nothing to slow demand for the products that we need most, namely middle distillates like jet fuel and diesel.
All of these factors have led European analysts to expect that the disparity between gasoline and diesel will continue for several years to come. Jean-François Larivé, a technical coordinator with the European Oil Company Organization for Environment, Health and Safety, participated in a 2007 study of the refining imbalance problem. In early July, he told me that the trend now underway “cannot reverse because all the new demand is coming from diesel.” As for the pricing disparity between gasoline and diesel, he said that it may even “get worse.”
In other words, the diesel crunch has just started. And the inflationary effects of the higher costs of diesel fuel are going to be felt throughout the U.S. economy (and the global economy) for years to come. .
Thursday, August 7, 2008
I filled up the Ranger Wednesday at $3.49.9 for unleaded.
My long foray into the suburbs Saturday was probably the most "highway" ever. I got 24 PG on this fill.This email from the lefty move-on.org seems to imply that the campaign to drill more domestically is catching on. http://www.americansolutions.com/media/4CDF1CEC-779C-4699-A123-A8992F4D9219/e42dc13c-170e-4a5b-84ce-26d77244a9be.pdf
Monday, August 4, 2008
Today crude oil briefly got below $120 and closed at $121. ++++
MinnPost.com had an article that I submitted a comment for. It is being held for review before posting but it should get posted soon. The link than my spiel will be at the end of this posting.
I did some checking at http://fueleconomy.gov/ and in 1985 the Ford Ranger was offered with a diesel which was supposed to be a "dog". I compared it the gas 4 sticks and the diesel go 23% better mileage. Diesel used to be cheaper but it's now 20% more than unleaded regular so financially that is pretty much a "wash", especially with diesels requiring more service and maintenance.
I expect the diesel/gas spread to grow in the future for several reasons. In Europe, diesel cost ten to fifteen percent less than gas because of tax policy but more than half the cars being sold there are now diesel. Also there will be more diesel pollution requirements for things like sulfur levels and this will cost. Also, a gallon of diesel has substantially more energy BTU's than gasoline. Refineries are getting far better catalytic crackers that can convert heavier residual oils into lighter fuels. They can squeeze out more gallons of gas than diesel with the new "crackers".
Also, the public doesn't like a gas tax hike but they are less "reactive" to high fuel oil and diesel prices. (the same base fuel) Only a small percentage of people use fuel oil and high diesel cost is basically an "indirect tax" to the general public in the US.
That's my "spiel" for today. Below is the promised story link and the comment I submitted. They tend to publish but a moderator reviews.
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/08/04/2819/no_bold_steps_on_gas_prices_--_at_least_not_in_the_us
So Air America claims that reducing the speed limit to 55 would end US imports? Hello!! We import 70% of our oil!
Here is a link to a list of imports by country. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Number eight is Iraq where we import a bit under half a million barrels a day out of total US consumption of 20 to 22 million barrels a day. Technically, an aggressively enforced 55 speed limit might reduce our usage equal to the amount we import from Iraq.
As for the claim in this article that vehicle "efficiency" was doubled after 1975 automotive efficiency "doubled" is misleading. The US production of vehicles before 1975 focused on the full sized large engine "boats". To give an example a modern day Crown Victoria police interceptor gets ten to twelve miles per gallon, not much better than the early 1970's "boat". The difference is mostly due to smaller vehicles.
Hybrids might save fuel but they have a relatively narrow "sweet spot" in use age. For example, I live and drive mostly in the city so I could benefit from a hybrid but I drive under 3000 miles a year and use under half a gallon of gas per day so the hybrid is not cost effective.
On a lark I checked the mileage of my 2005 Ford Ranger 4 cylinder "stick" (a poor persons hybrid) with the 1985 version. My fuel efficiency is well around 5% better. My 2.3 liter engine is far more powerful, with fuel injection, four valves per cylinder and double overhead cam but the MPG hasn't increased much in 20 years on the Ranger, which has used the same basic "platform" for around three decades. This makes it good for comparison.
I did some checking at http://fueleconomy.gov/ and in 1985 the Ford Ranger was offered with a diesel which was supposed to be a "dog". I compared it the gas 4 sticks and the diesel go 23% better mileage. Diesel used to be cheaper but it's now 20% more than unleaded regular so financially that is pretty much a "wash", especially with diesels requiring more service and maintenance.
I expect the diesel/gas spread to grow in the future for several reasons. In Europe, diesel cost ten to fifteen percent less than gas because of tax policy but more than half the cars being sold there are now diesel. Also there will be more diesel pollution requirements for things like sulfur levels and this will cost. Also, a gallon of diesel has substantially more energy BTU's than gasoline. Refineries are getting far better catalytic crackers that can convert heavier residual oils into lighter fuels. They can squeeze out more gallons of gas than diesel with the new "crackers".
Also, the public doesn't like a gas tax hike but they are less "reactive" to high fuel oil and diesel prices. (the same base fuel) Only a small percentage of people use fuel oil and high diesel cost is basically an "indirect tax" to the general public in the US.
That's my "spiel" for today. Below is the promised story link and the comment I submitted. They tend to publish but a moderator reviews.
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/08/04/2819/no_bold_steps_on_gas_prices_--_at_least_not_in_the_us
So Air America claims that reducing the speed limit to 55 would end US imports? Hello!! We import 70% of our oil!
Here is a link to a list of imports by country. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Number eight is Iraq where we import a bit under half a million barrels a day out of total US consumption of 20 to 22 million barrels a day. Technically, an aggressively enforced 55 speed limit might reduce our usage equal to the amount we import from Iraq.
As for the claim in this article that vehicle "efficiency" was doubled after 1975 automotive efficiency "doubled" is misleading. The US production of vehicles before 1975 focused on the full sized large engine "boats". To give an example a modern day Crown Victoria police interceptor gets ten to twelve miles per gallon, not much better than the early 1970's "boat". The difference is mostly due to smaller vehicles.
Hybrids might save fuel but they have a relatively narrow "sweet spot" in use age. For example, I live and drive mostly in the city so I could benefit from a hybrid but I drive under 3000 miles a year and use under half a gallon of gas per day so the hybrid is not cost effective.
On a lark I checked the mileage of my 2005 Ford Ranger 4 cylinder "stick" (a poor persons hybrid) with the 1985 version. My fuel efficiency is well around 5% better. My 2.3 liter engine is far more powerful, with fuel injection, four valves per cylinder and double overhead cam but the MPG hasn't increased much in 20 years on the Ranger, which has used the same basic "platform" for around three decades. This makes it good for comparison.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
New York Times: The $4.49-a-Gallon Vacation
A typical "one tank of gas round trip" getaway story. Note the title making reference for $.449 gas. With the obligatory .9 at the end it rounds to $4.50. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/travel/03saugatuck.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=travel&pagewanted=all
Saturday, August 2, 2008
My Saturday foray into the outer tier suburbs.
The gas stove that came with the house when I bought it was getting pretty ratty. I replaced a few years back with a very basic stove with pilot lights. that I got for helping carry a few things with the pickup and trailer. I have been watching for the right replacement. I tried appliance stores and they told me that it would cost at least $500 for the type I wanted with electronic ignition and a programmable oven shut off. Carigslist had what I wanted from a remodeling pull out. The new stove was color coordinated. The price was right. I wanted a solid stove with electronic ignition but this also had electronic ignition.
Several energy angles here. The electronic ignition eliminated three pilot lights. That's somewhat irrelevant in the winter when the heat, well, heats! With my low level of stove and oven usage the pilots probably burn more gas than the actual cooking. I do not have Central Air conditioning so in summer it's only wasted heat. (That would be more load for Central AC).
Once installed my only pilot light will be on the gas water heater. That is vented outside and to some degree it keeps the water warm. Demand water heaters don't seem to pay off yet but I put a double insulating blanket on my water heater. Also, it helps to drain a little water from the hot water spigot on a regular basis so sediment doesn't build up on the bottom. I try to do this once a week and have a hose permanently on the drain spigot. I like to run a bucket of water and check the bucket for sediment. There usually is a little sediment each time. http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/pages/WHRpages/English/Longevity/sediment-in-hot-water-heaters.html
If the water tank has sediments (several inches is not uncommon on scrapped tanks) this greatly reduces efficiency and tank life. With the stove I bought my house will have no "indoor enviorment" pilot lights. On the Internet there are some nasty claims about these but I haven't noticed it. Instead of central AC I run one or two very high efficiency (under 10 watt draw) exhaust fans in high piano windows I installed scrap pipes in the high piano windows (I'll try to get pictures.) The pipes are further "tricked" to make them burglary proof. I have other windows "burglar proofed" so there is an extremely efficient air circulation. I live in a low crime area but I used to work night shifts before I retired so I wanted the house to be secure but cooled. This might be a subject of a future post. Doing a bit of "mental math" my summer fan cooling system adds fifteen to thirty cents per week to my electric bill and it keeps the house a lot cooler. A dollar a month more in summer electricity? Yeah I can afford that!
As for the trip to the outer burbs I tried to consolidate trips but the best laid plans oft go astray. Google maps said 25.3 miles but I of course got lost and drove almost 90 miles total so nearly 40 of it was lost. We somehow got cell phone numbers mixed up so I couldn't call. That burned up much of my $3.44 gas I topped off with a couple of days ago.
I try to treat everything as a learning/reporting experience. On the main roads of my "misroutes" I noticed that you had around one fifth of the density of city. On the main routes a lot of it seemed to be business and institutional room for expansion. The house lots are large of course. Economically, the area seemed healthy. I didn't see many vacant businesses and saw no distressed residential housing. A lot of miles driving there and that does not favor the so-called "alternative" energy vehicles. My standard transmission would probably match a hybrid there. If gas goes way up we have serious problems here because of the sheer distances.
The Craigslist seller seemed a nice guy. He bought the house from a relative. Ironically he works here in town with the base maybe three miles from me. I would guess his commute at 23 miles each way but I didn't ask. To round to 25 and figuring five day a week work I figure he is now spending at least $50 per week just on gas to commute. I didn't ask him but just getting around there seems to add a lot more. He seems to favor fuel efficient vehicles, he said he has owned several Ford Rangers. Added to that with the longer distances in the outer ring burbs the gas costs can be high.
The irony is that the guy works here in the city. He said he used to live in a higher crime area of the city. That's another subject for a future posting. Crime rates vary dramatically in the cities. Again, seems like a nice guy.
Several energy angles here. The electronic ignition eliminated three pilot lights. That's somewhat irrelevant in the winter when the heat, well, heats! With my low level of stove and oven usage the pilots probably burn more gas than the actual cooking. I do not have Central Air conditioning so in summer it's only wasted heat. (That would be more load for Central AC).
Once installed my only pilot light will be on the gas water heater. That is vented outside and to some degree it keeps the water warm. Demand water heaters don't seem to pay off yet but I put a double insulating blanket on my water heater. Also, it helps to drain a little water from the hot water spigot on a regular basis so sediment doesn't build up on the bottom. I try to do this once a week and have a hose permanently on the drain spigot. I like to run a bucket of water and check the bucket for sediment. There usually is a little sediment each time. http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/pages/WHRpages/English/Longevity/sediment-in-hot-water-heaters.html
If the water tank has sediments (several inches is not uncommon on scrapped tanks) this greatly reduces efficiency and tank life. With the stove I bought my house will have no "indoor enviorment" pilot lights. On the Internet there are some nasty claims about these but I haven't noticed it. Instead of central AC I run one or two very high efficiency (under 10 watt draw) exhaust fans in high piano windows I installed scrap pipes in the high piano windows (I'll try to get pictures.) The pipes are further "tricked" to make them burglary proof. I have other windows "burglar proofed" so there is an extremely efficient air circulation. I live in a low crime area but I used to work night shifts before I retired so I wanted the house to be secure but cooled. This might be a subject of a future post. Doing a bit of "mental math" my summer fan cooling system adds fifteen to thirty cents per week to my electric bill and it keeps the house a lot cooler. A dollar a month more in summer electricity? Yeah I can afford that!
As for the trip to the outer burbs I tried to consolidate trips but the best laid plans oft go astray. Google maps said 25.3 miles but I of course got lost and drove almost 90 miles total so nearly 40 of it was lost. We somehow got cell phone numbers mixed up so I couldn't call. That burned up much of my $3.44 gas I topped off with a couple of days ago.
I try to treat everything as a learning/reporting experience. On the main roads of my "misroutes" I noticed that you had around one fifth of the density of city. On the main routes a lot of it seemed to be business and institutional room for expansion. The house lots are large of course. Economically, the area seemed healthy. I didn't see many vacant businesses and saw no distressed residential housing. A lot of miles driving there and that does not favor the so-called "alternative" energy vehicles. My standard transmission would probably match a hybrid there. If gas goes way up we have serious problems here because of the sheer distances.
The Craigslist seller seemed a nice guy. He bought the house from a relative. Ironically he works here in town with the base maybe three miles from me. I would guess his commute at 23 miles each way but I didn't ask. To round to 25 and figuring five day a week work I figure he is now spending at least $50 per week just on gas to commute. I didn't ask him but just getting around there seems to add a lot more. He seems to favor fuel efficient vehicles, he said he has owned several Ford Rangers. Added to that with the longer distances in the outer ring burbs the gas costs can be high.
The irony is that the guy works here in the city. He said he used to live in a higher crime area of the city. That's another subject for a future posting. Crime rates vary dramatically in the cities. Again, seems like a nice guy.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Top US oil import sources.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Out of the top10 total petroleum importers, to the US, only 2 are “Arab States” and both are our allies. If you go to the top15, 3 are “Arab States.” Of the 3 that are, all 3 are our allies and 2 are relatively minor in quantity.
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)(Thousand Barrels per Day)Country YTD 2007
1 - CANADA 2,426
2 - MEXICO 1,533
3 - S ARABIA 1,489
4 - VENEZUELA 1,362
5 - NIGERIA 1,132
6 - ALGERIA 670
7 - ANGOLA 507
8 - IRAQ 485
9 - RUSSIA 413
10 - VIRGIN ISLANDS 346
11 - U KINGDOM 278
12 - ECUADOR 203
13 - BRAZIL 202
14 - KUWAIT 183
15 - NETHERLANDS 127
Out of the top10 total petroleum importers, to the US, only 2 are “Arab States” and both are our allies. If you go to the top15, 3 are “Arab States.” Of the 3 that are, all 3 are our allies and 2 are relatively minor in quantity.
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)(Thousand Barrels per Day)Country YTD 2007
1 - CANADA 2,426
2 - MEXICO 1,533
3 - S ARABIA 1,489
4 - VENEZUELA 1,362
5 - NIGERIA 1,132
6 - ALGERIA 670
7 - ANGOLA 507
8 - IRAQ 485
9 - RUSSIA 413
10 - VIRGIN ISLANDS 346
11 - U KINGDOM 278
12 - ECUADOR 203
13 - BRAZIL 202
14 - KUWAIT 183
15 - NETHERLANDS 127
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)