Unleaded vs. Super Unleaded

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by shultice24

But can it be done without compromising any urgency to move away from fossil fuels?

If we make it a priority to move away from fossil fuels then I believe it's possible to take what we have here while searching for alternatives. I don't know the timetable to get oil from ANWR or offshore sites but it's likely far less than the other plans which seem to be mostly theory at the moment; especially, in terms of their actual worthiness.

My other concern with new technologies is who is gonna pay for it. The oil companies are already set up to drill for oil. They are willing to spend billions to explore for new reserves and they largely have the resources in place to do it. I'm not very sure that the other alternatives can be put into place very quick without, yet again burdening the tax payer. Keep in mind that this will all come on the heels of a possible second stimulus plan, Cap and trade, and the new healthcare plan and God knows what else they'll dream up.

It kind of seems like our leaders have no foresight or don't really care beyond the next election.

[shultice24]

Tough issues for sure, Greenback. I can certainly understand your argument for domestic drilling. What really irked me was last year when ANWR and offshore drilling completely dominated GOP's energy discussions, as if it was the magic bullet.

How bout this solution? We go back in time 10-15 years and implement a plan that gradually increases gas taxes. By the time we get back to 2009 gas will be $4+ a gallon, but it won't be a big deal because we will be many times less dependent upon oil than we are now. The market will have had ample time to respond to steadily rising fossil fuel costs, and will have adjusted accordingly. I bet we'd already be driving plug-in cars.

I don't know what's more unrealistic though; going back in time or getting our politicians to support a bill that's not pro-big oil.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

It kind of seems like our leaders have no foresight or don't really care beyond the next election.

Sigh... Amen to that one. It's unfortunate that in our top-down bureaucracy, those at the top are rewarded for short-term, ad-hoc thinking and aren't affected by or accountable for the long-term results of their actions.

[burleson]

Originally Posted by RedThunderBird

I know that , I just wanted to make sure the other posters would also know this === sometimes words can be misleading , even when is not intentional , but correct me if I am wrong === In the U.S we don't use leaded gas at all === so the term unleaded used by gas stations to differentiate one price from another is wrong =========== which brings me to the point , that the lowest price on gasoline should be the one the one you want to save money , unless the vehicle requires a higher octane , which it would tell you right in the gas cap ....... otherwise you are doing more harm , than good to your car , and wallet ==== consumers should be aware of this , and unfortunately they are not ==== go for the lowest priced gasoline , you don't need to spend more or even harm your car , regardless of the commercials on TV .

I'm sorry, you have no clue what you are talking about. It is called simple math. Here are the figures from my own two vehicles my wife and I use to commute to work everyday. I have a large sample size and these are accurate.

Ethanol Non-Ethanol
Miles Per Day 100 100
Miles Per Gallon 33 37
Gallons Per Day 3.03 2.70
Price Per Gallon $2.55 $2.65
Cost Per Day $7.73 $7.16
Cost Per Month $167.45 $155.20
Cost Per Year $2,009.09 $1,862.16

Ethanol Non-Ethanol
Miles Per Day 50 50
Miles Per Gallon 15 17
Gallons Per Day 3.33 2.94
Price Per Gallon $2.55 $2.65
Cost Per Day $8.50 $7.79
Cost Per Month $184.20 $168.90
Cost Per Year $2,210.00 $2,026.47

I save $330.51 a year using NON ETHANOL. It is less efficient for my vehicles and the price discount is not greater than the loss of efficiency. The higher gas prices go, the more I save. At $4.00 gas, I save $601.90 a year. Not gigantic numbers, but I'll take it. Enough with the "it doesn't matter what gas you put in - the cheapest is the best option" nonsense. I go with facts.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by burleson

I'm sorry, you have no clue what you are talking about. It is called simple math. Here are the figures from my own two vehicles my wife and I use to commute to work everyday. I have a large sample size and these are accurate.

Ethanol Non-Ethanol
Miles Per Day 100 100
Miles Per Gallon 33 37
Gallons Per Day 3.03 2.70
Price Per Gallon $2.55 $2.65
Cost Per Day $7.73 $7.16
Cost Per Month $167.45 $155.20
Cost Per Year $2,009.09 $1,862.16

Ethanol Non-Ethanol
Miles Per Day 50 50
Miles Per Gallon 15 17
Gallons Per Day 3.33 2.94
Price Per Gallon $2.55 $2.65
Cost Per Day $8.50 $7.79
Cost Per Month $184.20 $168.90
Cost Per Year $2,210.00 $2,026.47

I save $330.51 a year using NON ETHANOL. It is less efficient for my vehicles and the price discount is not greater than the loss of efficiency. The higher gas prices go, the more I save. At $4.00 gas, I save $601.90 a year. Not gigantic numbers, but I'll take it. Enough with the "it doesn't matter what gas you put in - the cheapest is the best option" nonsense. I go with facts.

Let's not forget that the price of the commodity(corn) goes up to produce this and when the price of corn goes up it,of course, drives up the price at the grocery store on anything related to corn and many, many things are.

People are often very shortsighted and fail to look at the big picture. What you pay at the pump is only the beggining of the impact.