The crux of the article is that oil prices in the US are a historical outlier among advanced economies because of how low they are. Food, land, and housing are other commodities that are cheaper in the United States than in most advanced economies.
Current inflation is slowing bringing these commodities in line with the historical baseline that other countries have always experienced. Americans have been spoiled for a long time.
> In general, gas is cheapest in countries that are net exporters of crude oil and refined oil products. These countries have surplus oil production that they can export and provide gas to their domestic markets at below-market, heavily subsidized costs.
This suggests the U.S. recently went from being a net exporter to an importer, and I think that was done during this administration. It's no secret they are pushing for more green energy, and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production.
This is the natural result of believing combustion engines are a huge problem for the environment. Of course we need to stop using it, so higher prices is good because people won't use it as much. Unfortunately it's a drastic change and it's affecting everything because there really is no proper alternative. The end result is that it hurts poor people the most.
> This suggests the U.S. recently went from being a net exporter to an importer
Looking at the data [1], that's probably not the reason. Sanctions on Russia, combined with the outlook of lower demand in the future, make short-term investments in increased production capacities unfeasible: [2]
> the biggest firms have so far stuck with investment plans forged before prices really soared, choosing to put the windfalls primarily toward shareholder payouts, rather than extra production.
> Investors are pushing companies to share profits now, instead of making long term investments, given uncertainty over demand as the world pushes to shift away from fossil fuels
> and I think that was done during this administration. It's no secret they are pushing for more green energy, and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production.
I think this is an easy statement to substantiate, and I believe it'd set a foundation as it derails to a moot point the moment a conclusion is derived from your own speculation.
To be fair to the original commenter, he probably didn't make this up and was fed it by a source he believes is reputable. You spend too much time in an echo chamber it's easy to be fed ideas that seem reasonably on the onset but are actually propaganda.
I think media literacy is incredibly hard; and if he didn't throw in "by this administration", I wouldn't have been as skeptical of his claim either (not because I'm a Biden loyalist, but because any time anyone tries to pin a market effect on the president I'm immediately skeptical).
I try to read all kinds of sources, and I was just interpreting the article at a high level. We're clearly trying to switch over to renewable sources, except also not investing in nuclear energy, so I think we're seeing some of the consequences of pushing for something that cannot meet demand. I'll keep looking into this, however I'm sure Biden did change several energy policies and is pushing for green energy (and it's the ethical decision in the long term, but has short term consequences).
>however I'm sure Biden did change several energy policies and is pushing for green energy (and it's the ethical decision in the long term, but has short term consequences).
For what it's worth Biden has done little of the sort. I think it's important to differentiate the media circus around AOC's wishful policies, like the green new deal, and what Biden has actually implemented.
1. The number of oil drilling/fracking permits has actually increased under Biden (despite him campaigning on banning them)[1]
2. The only "green" EO biden has passed thus far EO 14057, only mandates reaching carbon neutrality by 2035 and largely does so by buying electric vehicles.[2]
3. The rest of his energy related EOs are about sanctioning russia.
Meanwhile congress has pretty much been toothless when it has come to green energy initiatives. While both major media parties make a lot of noise to make it seem like the democrats are doing something about energy, to the dismay of those of us who actually care, nothing has actually materially passed.
I wish I could blame Biden for rising energy prices due to green technology; at least we would be getting something in return for $5 gas.
To my earlier point, unless you can show me what those policies are, and when they passed in congress, you are just speculating. It's one thing to say the Biden is focused on green energy. To say that's the cause of our current energy woes you have to be able to point to specific EOs are laws passed that would support such a claim. AFAICT, the democrats have pretty much squandered their majority in congress with little to show for it.
> For what it's worth Biden has done little of the sort. I think it's important to differentiate the media circus around AOC's wishful policies, like the green new deal, and what Biden has actually implemented.
I don't know about that. It's hard to tell how much influence the hard left has on Biden, but it's not negligible. There is this letter by the senators explaining some of the problems:
> NMFS’s permitting delays represent one example of the Administration’s de facto ban on new drilling – impeding domestic oil and gas investment, exploration, and production.
> The letter notes that the delays are principally due to “three administration-made and admitted mistakes” caused by mathematic errors in calculating the number of endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico in a 2021...
I think at least there is incentive to decrease fossil fuels and move more quickly to renewable, and it worries me because nuclear is not a popular option.
"Senators" here is doing a lot work; the senator in question is Ted Cruz, who stands to benefit the most from Biden's ineptitude and isn't a stranger to twisting news for his own political gain.
Even the letter betrays your point by calling the ban a "de-facto" ban. Ted Cruz is playing with words here because he knows there no official ban but he can blame any sort of organizational mishap on a perception of a delay due to effective media propoganda. And again, this tone of this letter doesn't match the data; Biden is issuing _more_ permits than Trump did.
>And then Biden has made it clear this administration is pursuing ambitious goals
He also campaigned profusely on eliminating student debt and a $15/wage that were wildly popular among his base. 2 years in and he has accomplished naught and has actively renegaded on those campaign promises. I trust that you would find it incredulous if someone told you that businesses were raising their prices because Biden put in a $15 min wage, when clearly that hasn't happened.
Chest thumping at the pulpit isn't policy. And if he hasn't enacted policy, that you can point to, then any explanation you might have is baseless speculation.
Yeah Cruz can be out there sometimes. It's signed by other senators as well, but point taken. I'm still not convinced it's all coincidence given the shift in attitude towards fossil fuels, especially with no real alternative. I'll consider this further though, thanks for your input.
The president does not have control over the international oil market, you need to understand that. There are much more powerful entities that can nudge it, at the same time it's a massive market, very likely the largest product market in the world, so power is also somewhat diluted.
The shift has not happened, there are no policies in place coming from the Executive or Legislative branches of US government doing any pressure on the market prices.
Please, read the arguments presented with supporting evidence from other comments and get off from this stubborn position that is only based on your assumptions and biases...
Sorting out EIA's data presentation is difficult, but my understanding is that given the fracking boom, a large fraction of US extraction is distillate and NGL --- very light components of petroleum which are highly volatile and not suited to vehicle fuel --- they have very low octane ratings, in the 60s or lower. (These were used as fuels early in automotive history, but higher octane and resulting higher compression ratios are more efficient).
Those NGLs are sold for other uses, and in particular, for mixing with heavy tar crudes (as from Venezuela) or tar-sands oil (Canada) to improve flow qualities and lower the net weight of those fuels.
i was convinced fracking put in a price ceiling on a barrel of oil at around $75. Where are they?? There's been enough time to bring capacity online and there's plenty of money to be made uncorking the wells. Did opec buy all the wells and are just leaving them offline? I can't figure out why the frackers aren't pumping in full force.
Because the survivors are risk averse. 2 years ago people were cheering as they proclaimed the death of oil and companies with ~ 60 billion in debt went bankrupt.
Now the Fed is pushing the economy into recession (lower demand) and high oil prices are policy-driven (Russia sanctions), mostly from displaced supply. Investing heavily in this environment is risky.
Thats an absolutely excellent point. Maybe the cost to start/stop fracking is too high AND/OR they don't think this will last long enough to justify getting started. Otherwise you are very correct yet I have seen no evidence of a sudden fracking boom. Very very interesting...
> and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production.
We produce more barrels of oil today than in the previous administration. Granted, it's a marginal amount more on a daily basis, but it's still more, and by quite a bit over the year. We have actually seen nothing but upticks in oil production in the US since the Obama admin. Not because the Obama admin encouraged it, but because the world price of a barrel of oil became high enough to warrant exploiting harder to reach and extract oil deposits.
Fuel price per gallon is only half the issue - or maybe even less.
Last week I filled up with 93 octane for $6.10 per gallon. Took a ~300 mile road trip with the cruise control set at 72mph. I got passed by people driving 80+ mph every minute or two. In really large vehicles. There's really only two possible conclusions:
1. People don't realize that their driving behavior has a huge impact on their fuel economy.
2. Fuel isn't that expensive.
My car (Audi Q5) got 37 mpg. The window sticker says it should only get 28 mpg on the highway. This isn't even hypermiling - I'm speeding the entire time.
You got 37MPG in a (I guess they're technically "compact") SUV with a gasoline (petrol) engine? I'm just having a really hard time with that. That's in the same ballpark as what diesel wagons get (the TDI Sportwagen sees a real world ~43 MPG) and the Q5 isn't exactly a svelte profile, aerodynamically speaking.
Did this roadtrip consist of large amounts of elevation loss? I just have a really hard time understanding how you bested the EPA estimates by almost 28% while cruising at 70+ MPH. I roadtrip in an Outback wagon that can manage somewhere near 30MPG if I keep my foot out of it and is a similar footprint to a Q5, if not a bit more aerodynamic.
If you tailgate someone you can get that magical reduction in air resistance which can increase fuel economy. I hate driving on busy roads for this reason, some jack hole will always be right on my ass and I can't even see their headlights.
If OP has their cruise control set at 72MPH and is tailgating close enough that they benefit from the slipstream, I'm 1.)impressed at their precision driving 2.) terrified we may share the road some day.
I don't doubt that we may someday achieve more autonomous highway cruising where vehicles take 'lead' and 'follow' positions within feet of each other to benefit from drafting, but humans doing it scares me senseless.
That's not true. Gasoline has approximately the same energy content per gallon regardless of octane rating. In Car and Driver's tests, high octane fuel made a difference of less than 1 mpg.
Some high performance engines are designed to use high octane fuel, but there is no reason to use it on normal engines in normal conditions.
Seriously? Honest question - how does that work? I've always heard that paying for a higher octane fuel than required by your engine is just "throwing your money away." But if you're saying, at least on the highway, if I can get a 28% gain in fuel efficiency while only paying 20% more for the fuel then I'm interested!
Every car I've owned, I've done a compare and contrast on 91 or 93 vs 87 octane gas.
Each time I do the comparison I find that the cost per mile (not cost per gallon) is lower with the higher octane gas. The only time I buy 87 is if I need to fill up a rental car just before returning it.
Have all of your cars been performance-oriented with either high compression ratios or turbocharged engines? If so, it makes sense. For quite some time, such cars have used a knock sensor to detect preignition and adjust ignition timing to prevent it. The adjustment has costs in both power and efficiency.
I've replicated this test over the years on inefficient gas guzzling American sedans, fuel efficient econobox hatchbacks, and sporty performance SKUs of mainstream product lines. These are hardly Shelby Cobra and Bugatti vehicles.
If your car calls for regular gas and you give it premium, you're probably throwing money away.
If your car calls for premium and you give it regular, your diminished performance & fuel economy is also most likely wasting money. Penny-wise/Pound-foolish and all.
I've got a Germanic turbomotor, it's going to break if I look at it wrong. It calls for a minimum of 91 octane, but Costco in Illinois only has 87 and 93. So 93 it is.
I did the unscientific math on my Volvo (recommends premium but takes anything) and while the efficiency on premium is better, it's not worth the large price increase over regular.
Higher octane fuel has less energy by volume. That's one of the reasons it doesn't pre-detonate as easily. Try it sometime, indeed, and prepare to be disappointed.
Long trips with no traffic in warm weather (but not so warm as to require a lot of AC) are more efficient for an ICE vehicle per mile than the average trip. OP probably lucked into the right conditions
Excellent questions. It was a there-and-back trip, so every foot of elevation lost was also re-climbed (about 100 feet overall - the midwest is pretty flat).
This car has Audi's "energy recuperation system", which is actually a "mild hybrid" system but you'll never see those words on the website or Monroney or any advertising - "mild hybrid" has a terrible public reputation despite the fact that it works (but doesn't have much of an effect on the EPA test cycle). Almost every single Audi (and Volvo) sold in the US has this system. It is also the base model, so the tires and wheels are the base 18-inchers which weigh a LOT less than the 20+ inch wheels that everyone loves (and kill fuel economy). The transmission gear ratios are perfectly matched for the speeds I choose. I use high-quality gasoline from Costco, etc.
Go read other people on Audiworld or other forums. I'm not an outlier. These modern turbo engines are great for highway cruising, but drink fuel like it's free if you want "spirited driving".
As far as I can tell, you won't see "hybrid" on Audi's site because the "energy recuperation system" isn't a hybrid system at all -- it simply banks energy from the alternator and then reduces the load on the alternator (and the load on the engine, as a byproduct) when requested, allowing the car's energy needs to be drawn off the battery during that time instead.
From Audi's literature:
>While the vehicle is coasting or braking, the alternator voltage is raised above the level of the basic electrical system. During these phases the alternator can convert the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy, which is stored temporarily in the vehicle battery. When the vehicle subsequently accelerates or is driven at constant speeds, this energy is used to relieve the load on the alternator, allowing a fuel saving of up to 3%, depending on the driving cycle.
I am fully aware of how efficient a modern turbo engine can be, and perhaps you did, in fact, best the EPA estimates. Did you calculate these numbers yourself, or rely on the onboard computer?
That's fine, we don't have to call it a mild hybrid. But whatever you want to call it, it's working really well on my car. It only has about 7k miles on it, but the efficiency keeps getting better as it breaks-in. I have to imagine that this is probably as good as it will get.
Let me ask you something, though: if I went back and edited the original post to say 30 mpg, would you agree that how someone drives makes a huge difference in their fuel costs. Because that was my main point :)
Yes - I'm certainly being pedantic. You're correct in that driving style can have a huge impact on fuel consumption. You don't have to hypermile it; just not playing speed racer between red lights, cruising at 70 instead of 85 helps, etc.
I was just kind of blown away by the claim. Not that long ago, high 30's MPG on the highway was the domain of economy cars (think Corolla's and the like) and euro diesel cars. To hear that a gasoline SUV, albeit a smaller one, could be close to 40MPG on the highway made me skeptical and curious of how it was achieved.
Sounds about right to me. I have the wagon version of this vehicle (A6 Allroad) which has pretty much the same engine and similar weight, just different aerodynamic profile.
If you put it in cruise and don't go fast I can hit just under 40 - but I've only had it for a couple months. This is for a 21/28 rated vehicle. Forum posts seem to validate this as well.
City driving it's exactly what you'd expect - couple miles under EPA estimates.
Edit: this is manually calculated, but with a sample size of one. Strangely the onboard computer seems to underestimate in this vehicle, which is the exact opposite of every other car I've driven. Probably the most unexpected bit of owning this car so far.
The amount of gas spent idling is quite low. A compact sedan uses around 0.16 gallons per hour. Intuitively, this makes sense. The work required to accelerate a car is much higher than the work required to move the engine through its cycles.
Unlike "what" you drive, changing "how" you drive can have extraordinary and immediate benefits. Driving at 80 MPH uses around 30% more fuel than driving at 55.
For reference:
I drive SF <> LA monthly in a 2008 Avalon with advertised highway 28mpg.
Cruise control set to 75. My average is just above 30mpg. Windows shut, AC on.
Costco in Gilroy had 87 for $6.10.
Stations along the 5 ranged ~6.70-7.50.
My car says premium only but since gas in CA is so fresh I've done 87 for 10 years, no issues.
Since you're someone who tracks numbers, you might try doing a run with 91 or 93. I've done the comparison on every car I've owned and in every case the dollars per mile (not dollars per gallon) is better with the higher octane.
Spurred me to dig out an anecdote: 2005 Toyota Solara, 3.3l V6, vacation trip from CA to UT and back, Sept 2016, moderate A/C use: 6 days, 2550 miles, 28.9 mpg (100% lowest-octane "regular" gas used). As others have noted, driving smoothly with minimal/gentle acceleration has a major mpg benefit.
"The high prices of gas aren't a bad thing - they are great!"
Yes please - just keep that narrative up. Especially anti-energy Democrats. Please do continue to believe and shill that message. I'll even help you spread it :)
What is an anti-energy Democrat? I love energy, but I hate that we need to pollute the world to get it. We can make most things electric and generate electricity with renewable sources (unlike oil or coal). We get a society with all the fancy things we enjoy which consume energy, and also don’t destroy the world we live in. Sounds like a nobrainer to me
Only food got 100% more expensive, lets eat gasoline. One has to wonder which country is the free one and which has a higher quality public education, lol
And it will continue that way if we keep converting food into gas.
Gas today typically contains 10% bioethanol, and that number is expected to increase in the future. The goal is to burn less fossil fuel, which is a good thing.
Problem is: bioethanol often comes from sugar beet or cane, we literally run our cars on processed food. For Diesel, it is typically mixed with vegetable oil, again, burning food.
There is hope that one day, we will be able to make biofuel in a way that don't compete with food production, but we are not there yet. There are some successful experiments, but nothing at scale.
In russia some things doubled in price (I think I heard from interviews with russians, but I cant be sure its correct or give sources so I should say x%), but there are no official statistics about it of course.
Sanctions and tariffs are always paid by domestic consumers. They don't operate by making foreign consumers pay more, they operate by starving the foreign power of trade.
> high gas prices will finally encourage people to consider that cars aren't the only way to travel
It’s more likely to entrench them, along with build popular support for slashing a lot of climate regulations. Humans don’t like fast change. Trying to force it usually backfires.
In most of the United States it is the only way, unless you're referring to the disaster that is Amtrak or the four-ish airlines here (which also run on gas). I'd prefer an alternative too, but there isn't one (yet?).
And that, there, is the problem. Everywhere in the US is designed, often in legally-enforceable ways, to ensure that cars are prioritized over everything else.
Chicken and egg problem. Cars are necessary because businesses/places to work are far apart, but they got to be the distance they were because cars are around. The US is a huge place, there was plenty of space to go around and the current situation is what follows from it.
Partly, but it doesn't explain people's obsession with large, heavy, low MPG vehicles and the entitlement people have when it comes to fueling these cheaply.
The chicken-egg explanation is a normal consequence of not having anticipated the consequences when urban planning for car travel got going in the 50s. Unfortunate as it may be, but it's catch-22 that can be broken out of.
The unwillingness to break out of it, is because of the fetishization of car technology. This is a completely pathetic for adults to do, and is this toddler-mindset which is the biggest impediment to meaningful change today.
> The unwillingness to break out of it, is because of the fetishization of car technology.
Careful tossing that first stone. This is Hacker News. Surely most people here have made some technology purchasing choices moreso for coolness than for practicality. Cars are simply one particular sort of technology.
Amtrak is actually pretty great in the coastal part of the mid-north Atlantic region, I ride it very often. Pretty much everywhere else it's useless. In most of the US cars are very much the only option (no you can't bike on a 50mph two lane highway with no shoulders for 15 miles. That does not work.)
We don't have transit for a number of reasons, one is that everything would have to be torn up and rebuilt for high speed rail. Two we have a much lower trust society than places like Europe and Japan. Three it's just so unprofitable and people dislike it so much it never gets funding.
A mixture of carpooling, WFH, biking and walking, switching to fuel-efficient vehicles, less recreational driving, plus public transportation where it's available. I'm not saying any one of these will work for everyone, but when gas gets expensive enough you'll see all of these come into play.
What about the US being large requires one to frequently traverse it? Europe is large. And people don't frequently drive from one end of Spain to the other. And when they do, they have 200+mph trains to do it relatively quickly and cheaply.
Maybe? It depends on the situation! There exist situations where cars are the best option. The point is: they don't need to be the only option because the US is big.
....What? Why is that relevant? Europe is bigger than the US. Norway is bigger than New Jersey! Croatia is bigger than Massachusetts! Germany is bigger than Florida! Are you suggesting that because some arbitrarily-chosen borders from one are larger than other arbitrary borders on another somehow negates my point? Why does the size of the land-mass you live inside dictate the distance you need to travel day-to-day?
People live in New York City. It's in the US. Those people tend to drive a lot less than those living in, say, Los Angeles—who also unambiguously live in the US. Why?
< Are you suggesting that because some arbitrarily-chosen borders from one are larger than other arbitrary borders on another somehow negates my point?
Yes. Except that I'm not "suggesting" it. I'm stating it as a fact.
Note that "Europe" is also defined by an "arbitrarily-chosen border".
The time to invest in future is when the cost of resources was cheap. We should have built high-speed rail, lots of metro lines and expanded the Amtrak network.
What did we do instead? Occupied countries with nothing to show for it, engaged in futile trade wars and allowed financial speculation in everything we produce.
I used to take the local light rail back in college and it was great. Now, however, I am not located near the rail line and neither is my workplace. In order for me to take public transit, I would have to walk and take the bus. What normally takes me 15-20 minutes in a car would take an hour and forty-five minutes by bus, and involve three transfers (this is one-way, and the return trip is roughly the same time-wise).
Gas would have to become ludicrously expensive in order for me to make the choice to forfeit so much of my day to commuting. It would be ideal if the city I live in expands the light rail system but that's a decades long process.
What you need is both transit and land use which supports it.
Private automobiles aren't a bugfix on urban planning, as someone posted to Mastodon recently, they're the determining cause of sprawl patterns. Personal vehicles, cheap fuel, and high-quality uncongested roads cheapen distance and through the Jevons Paradox increase the amount of space used.
Light rail works great ... in reasonably dense urban environments and downtowns. If you have to walk only a few blocks to and from your boarding and disembarking points, they're great. Multi-link travel with transfers and delays is abysmal.
LRT also benefits heavily from dedicated rights of way, no roadway contention from other vehicles, traffic signals optimisation, and the rest.
And a single LRV can replace 40 -- 150+ vehicles on the road, depending on fill capacity.
Here's hoping that gas prices will rapidly fall so the less fortunate among us can afford to fill their tanks in the large swathes of the country where public transportation is simply not an option.
Here's hoping gas prices will fall rapidly so the less fortunate among us can afford to heat their homes next winter.
Here's hoping gas prices will fall rapidly so that the less fortunate among us can afford the rapid rising food prices that are the result of energy costs.
There are large parts of the US that do not have bus service.
High gas / diesel prices mean your cost of goods is going to keep going up because cities don't produce anything they consume. Just because this is acceptable to most people on this board's income doesn't mean its a good thing in any way.
It is not the only way to travel, but I can either take my car to work or spend twice as long + wait time for the bus.
It is something like a factor 1.5 to get to my parents and over 2 to my grandparents, much more if they can't pick me up and I have to walk the last 3 miles[0] from the bus stop. I don't know what the multiplier is to my brother, but it is likely to be quite high.
[0]: it can be done, it just takes quite some time.
It is just keeping up with inflation. A roasted duck at the 99 supermarket i just checked yesterday was $9 20 years ago, now it is $29. The houses in the neighborhood in 2007 were $850K, today is $2.5M. The same with salaries - the engineer salaries went from $80-140K 20 years ago to $350-600K today. Or even CA state budget - $100B in 2000, $300B in 2022 (with almost a $100B surplus on top of those $300B) for pretty much the same population.
So, it is just normal that the gas that was around $2-3, today - $7+. Thus the gas isn't "expensive", it is in-line with everything else, and thus wouldn't drastically change any behavior. Giving the instabilities, it wouldn't be surprising to see $10-15 gas.
The only reason that gas prices are this high in the US is a direct result of the democrat party. They LOVE high gas prices. The elite brag how they aren't concerned as their expensive Tesla doesn't use gas. They believe that the same people that can't afford these high gas prices are going to go out and buy a 60k dollar EV. They believe that everyone can switch to driving an EV and the power grid will some how be able to handle it.
There is no reason the US should not be completely energy independent. There is plenty of oil to drill, if the democrats would allow it.
High gas prices will be used as a talking piece against the Democrats if they continue through the mid-term elections… not sure your point of view makes a lot of sense.
Biden has blocked oil contracts in the US but supported other countries to produce oil, it is very clear the democratic parties plan. There is no reason for oil prices to be this high. It's clearly by design.
Has that actually happened though? In his first year in office, Biden approved more oil permits than Trump. Biden's continued to approve more permits recently. Obviously many of his supporters (including myself) don't like this. However the reality is that Biden has done more than Trump did to keep oil prices low, he just got hit with an unlucky set of geopolitical events.
But that’s not really what’s happening. The administration prevented the creation of the Keystone XL pipeline which everyone has known is a terrible idea for years. Meanwhile, they’re pursing alternate options to increase oil supply.
To believe that there is a single, easily-distillable "reason" to a very complex, country-wide (or wider) economic concern, should be an indicator to re-examine one's own depth of understanding on said issue.
Their are plenty of EVs that cost less than $60k. And plenty of used hybrids that cost a fraction of that.
High oil prices do push consumers to choose more efficient vehicles. They also benefit the US by sending way less money to countries that want to harm us - especially Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.
The median US household income is around 60k. The average consumer in the US cannot afford an EV as well as the cost to maintain one. Not to mention the very limited charging options available for travel.
Once EVs are produced in the same volumes as combustion cars today then the price for an EV will be the same, and probably lower as EV cars are much simpler and contain less components. Right now there is probably also some markup added just because the manufacturer can charge more for an EV (status, more demand than production capacity etc).
The charging time will likely also go down further which could allow for the batteries to become smaller for most use cases and thus the price come down even more.
And on top of that, if energy prices continue to stay high, the SUV/Truck era might slowly die away and smaller/lighter/aerodynamic cars with better mileage will become the norm. Less metal and smaller motor needed means cheaper car.
The USA has done itself an enormous disservice by allowing gas prices to remain so cheap. The entire economy builds itself up around the assumption of low fuel prices, then are flabbergasted when, yet again, fuel prices skyrocket.
The country has made great progress in terms of fuel economy. But the most popular vehicles sold in the USA (full sized pickups) still get like 18MPG. The majority of efficiency gains go into making them larger and more powerful, because there's no economic incentives to make trucks with the size and capability of 90s era trucks, but with double+ the fuel economy. Ford was at least able to be forward-looking and release the Maverick, a small hybrid pickup, at exactly the right time.
This. Both sides of the political spectrum are somewhat correct in their "arguments", but for the wrong reasons. Gas and water (re: the water issues rampant throughout the southwest USA) are two heavily subsidized utilities that the public hasn't been able to either a) feel the impact of, nor b) understand the true extend of the subsidization. Thus when supply-side issues overwhelm the subsidies, they are mad.
How much of this was a consequence of having separate categories of fuel efficiency regulations for "passenger cars" vs "light duty trucks" (including pickups and SUVs) incentivizing a growth in market share for the latter?
We have a very short collective memory. While fuel prices have been quite low over the last ~3-5 years, most people forgot the period between 2008-2014 where fuel was (relatively) expensive and went on right back to buying fuel inefficient SUVs and large trucks. Only TWO of the best selling vehicles in the US in 2021 were anything other than an SUV or pickup (Toyota Camry & Honda Civic). Now all of a sudden fuel is expensive again and people are being reminded of how expensive it can be to lug around a single person in a half-ton pickup every day.
> We have a very short collective memory. While fuel prices have been quite low over the last ~3-5 years, most people forgot the period between 2008-2014 where fuel was (relatively) expensive and went on right back to buying fuel inefficient SUVs and large trucks.
Which is perfectly rational. Why drive a car you don't want out of fear that gas prices may someday go up?
The real solution is crank gas taxes up so high that the little people are forced to buy little cars or take the bus, like we think they ought to be doing.
A less extreme option might be to stop giving larger vehicles a break on fuel economy standards. If car makers don't have to meet as strict a standard as long as the average car they sell is big, it's not hard to guess what kind of cars they'll try their best to sell.
>Which is perfectly rational. Why drive a car you don't want out of fear that gas prices may someday go up?
You don't have to buy a fuel efficient car today for an eventuality that may never happen, but you definitely don't have a leg to stand on when fuel gets more expensive and it suddenly costs you 10x more per month in fuel -- that's on (hypothetical) you.
Demand is overwhelming supply of EVs. The supply chain is still buggered and layoffs are not indicative of anything, nor is Tesla the only game in town anymore.
There aren't any EVs to purchase. Our '11 Leaf is getting way long in the tooth, but VW said they've sold out for the year (didn't like the plasticy ID.4 interior anyway), as well as Hyundai. And if there's a Kia EV6 to be found in the Seattle area, I can't find one. I'm not going anywhere near a Tesla, so AFAICT we're left with high-end luxury cars, and without looking I'm not sure there are any of those, either.
Granted, we're looking to buy because old EV, not gas prices. But whatever your reason for wanting one, good luck.
If people try to use their cars less for long in the US, they’re going to need to walk/bike or use public transit.
They’re going to get real mad when they do and find out what it’s like because none of us (in aggregate) seem to care enough to make sure public transit funded. And city/suburb design often makes walking/biking impractical/dangerous/impossible.
135 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 198 ms ] threadCurrent inflation is slowing bringing these commodities in line with the historical baseline that other countries have always experienced. Americans have been spoiled for a long time.
> In general, gas is cheapest in countries that are net exporters of crude oil and refined oil products. These countries have surplus oil production that they can export and provide gas to their domestic markets at below-market, heavily subsidized costs.
This suggests the U.S. recently went from being a net exporter to an importer, and I think that was done during this administration. It's no secret they are pushing for more green energy, and doing so by decreasing existing gas and oil production.
This is the natural result of believing combustion engines are a huge problem for the environment. Of course we need to stop using it, so higher prices is good because people won't use it as much. Unfortunately it's a drastic change and it's affecting everything because there really is no proper alternative. The end result is that it hurts poor people the most.
Looking at the data [1], that's probably not the reason. Sanctions on Russia, combined with the outlook of lower demand in the future, make short-term investments in increased production capacities unfeasible: [2]
> the biggest firms have so far stuck with investment plans forged before prices really soared, choosing to put the windfalls primarily toward shareholder payouts, rather than extra production.
> Investors are pushing companies to share profits now, instead of making long term investments, given uncertainty over demand as the world pushes to shift away from fossil fuels
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61446317
I think this is an easy statement to substantiate, and I believe it'd set a foundation as it derails to a moot point the moment a conclusion is derived from your own speculation.
I think media literacy is incredibly hard; and if he didn't throw in "by this administration", I wouldn't have been as skeptical of his claim either (not because I'm a Biden loyalist, but because any time anyone tries to pin a market effect on the president I'm immediately skeptical).
For what it's worth Biden has done little of the sort. I think it's important to differentiate the media circus around AOC's wishful policies, like the green new deal, and what Biden has actually implemented.
1. The number of oil drilling/fracking permits has actually increased under Biden (despite him campaigning on banning them)[1]
2. The only "green" EO biden has passed thus far EO 14057, only mandates reaching carbon neutrality by 2035 and largely does so by buying electric vehicles.[2]
3. The rest of his energy related EOs are about sanctioning russia.
Meanwhile congress has pretty much been toothless when it has come to green energy initiatives. While both major media parties make a lot of noise to make it seem like the democrats are doing something about energy, to the dismay of those of us who actually care, nothing has actually materially passed.
I wish I could blame Biden for rising energy prices due to green technology; at least we would be getting something in return for $5 gas.
To my earlier point, unless you can show me what those policies are, and when they passed in congress, you are just speculating. It's one thing to say the Biden is focused on green energy. To say that's the cause of our current energy woes you have to be able to point to specific EOs are laws passed that would support such a claim. AFAICT, the democrats have pretty much squandered their majority in congress with little to show for it.
[1] https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-da... [2] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/13/2021-27...
I don't know about that. It's hard to tell how much influence the hard left has on Biden, but it's not negligible. There is this letter by the senators explaining some of the problems:
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cruz-sen...
> NMFS’s permitting delays represent one example of the Administration’s de facto ban on new drilling – impeding domestic oil and gas investment, exploration, and production.
> The letter notes that the delays are principally due to “three administration-made and admitted mistakes” caused by mathematic errors in calculating the number of endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico in a 2021...
And then Biden has made it clear this administration is pursuing ambitious goals that have to do with transitioning away from fossil fuels. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1528712761554903040
I think at least there is incentive to decrease fossil fuels and move more quickly to renewable, and it worries me because nuclear is not a popular option.
Even the letter betrays your point by calling the ban a "de-facto" ban. Ted Cruz is playing with words here because he knows there no official ban but he can blame any sort of organizational mishap on a perception of a delay due to effective media propoganda. And again, this tone of this letter doesn't match the data; Biden is issuing _more_ permits than Trump did.
>And then Biden has made it clear this administration is pursuing ambitious goals
He also campaigned profusely on eliminating student debt and a $15/wage that were wildly popular among his base. 2 years in and he has accomplished naught and has actively renegaded on those campaign promises. I trust that you would find it incredulous if someone told you that businesses were raising their prices because Biden put in a $15 min wage, when clearly that hasn't happened.
Chest thumping at the pulpit isn't policy. And if he hasn't enacted policy, that you can point to, then any explanation you might have is baseless speculation.
The shift has not happened, there are no policies in place coming from the Executive or Legislative branches of US government doing any pressure on the market prices.
Please, read the arguments presented with supporting evidence from other comments and get off from this stubborn position that is only based on your assumptions and biases...
> Total petroleum net exports were about 0.16 million b/d in 2021, and total petroleum net exports in 2020 were 0.63 million b/d.
We also import a lot of oil, because the nation is enormous and consists of multiple markets. But we are importing less than we were 10-20 years ago. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
Whether the balance is slightly above or below zero cannot be all that important.
Those NGLs are sold for other uses, and in particular, for mixing with heavy tar crudes (as from Venezuela) or tar-sands oil (Canada) to improve flow qualities and lower the net weight of those fuels.
(I wish I was joking - we are going to be hearing that excuse for the next decade)
American energy production has only inched up because executives fear that oil and gas prices won’t stay high.
Now the Fed is pushing the economy into recession (lower demand) and high oil prices are policy-driven (Russia sanctions), mostly from displaced supply. Investing heavily in this environment is risky.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-business-...
We produce more barrels of oil today than in the previous administration. Granted, it's a marginal amount more on a daily basis, but it's still more, and by quite a bit over the year. We have actually seen nothing but upticks in oil production in the US since the Obama admin. Not because the Obama admin encouraged it, but because the world price of a barrel of oil became high enough to warrant exploiting harder to reach and extract oil deposits.
Last week I filled up with 93 octane for $6.10 per gallon. Took a ~300 mile road trip with the cruise control set at 72mph. I got passed by people driving 80+ mph every minute or two. In really large vehicles. There's really only two possible conclusions:
1. People don't realize that their driving behavior has a huge impact on their fuel economy.
2. Fuel isn't that expensive.
My car (Audi Q5) got 37 mpg. The window sticker says it should only get 28 mpg on the highway. This isn't even hypermiling - I'm speeding the entire time.
Did this roadtrip consist of large amounts of elevation loss? I just have a really hard time understanding how you bested the EPA estimates by almost 28% while cruising at 70+ MPH. I roadtrip in an Outback wagon that can manage somewhere near 30MPG if I keep my foot out of it and is a similar footprint to a Q5, if not a bit more aerodynamic.
I don't doubt that we may someday achieve more autonomous highway cruising where vehicles take 'lead' and 'follow' positions within feet of each other to benefit from drafting, but humans doing it scares me senseless.
Some high performance engines are designed to use high octane fuel, but there is no reason to use it on normal engines in normal conditions.
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a28565486/honda-cr-v-v...
Which are...almost every lease I see running around, now.
Lots of cars adjust based on what's flowing in, too.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/octane-in-depth....
Each time I do the comparison I find that the cost per mile (not cost per gallon) is lower with the higher octane gas. The only time I buy 87 is if I need to fill up a rental car just before returning it.
This would be a surprising result otherwise.
If your car calls for premium and you give it regular, your diminished performance & fuel economy is also most likely wasting money. Penny-wise/Pound-foolish and all.
I've got a Germanic turbomotor, it's going to break if I look at it wrong. It calls for a minimum of 91 octane, but Costco in Illinois only has 87 and 93. So 93 it is.
This car has Audi's "energy recuperation system", which is actually a "mild hybrid" system but you'll never see those words on the website or Monroney or any advertising - "mild hybrid" has a terrible public reputation despite the fact that it works (but doesn't have much of an effect on the EPA test cycle). Almost every single Audi (and Volvo) sold in the US has this system. It is also the base model, so the tires and wheels are the base 18-inchers which weigh a LOT less than the 20+ inch wheels that everyone loves (and kill fuel economy). The transmission gear ratios are perfectly matched for the speeds I choose. I use high-quality gasoline from Costco, etc.
Go read other people on Audiworld or other forums. I'm not an outlier. These modern turbo engines are great for highway cruising, but drink fuel like it's free if you want "spirited driving".
From Audi's literature:
>While the vehicle is coasting or braking, the alternator voltage is raised above the level of the basic electrical system. During these phases the alternator can convert the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy, which is stored temporarily in the vehicle battery. When the vehicle subsequently accelerates or is driven at constant speeds, this energy is used to relieve the load on the alternator, allowing a fuel saving of up to 3%, depending on the driving cycle.
I am fully aware of how efficient a modern turbo engine can be, and perhaps you did, in fact, best the EPA estimates. Did you calculate these numbers yourself, or rely on the onboard computer?
That's fine, we don't have to call it a mild hybrid. But whatever you want to call it, it's working really well on my car. It only has about 7k miles on it, but the efficiency keeps getting better as it breaks-in. I have to imagine that this is probably as good as it will get.
Let me ask you something, though: if I went back and edited the original post to say 30 mpg, would you agree that how someone drives makes a huge difference in their fuel costs. Because that was my main point :)
I was just kind of blown away by the claim. Not that long ago, high 30's MPG on the highway was the domain of economy cars (think Corolla's and the like) and euro diesel cars. To hear that a gasoline SUV, albeit a smaller one, could be close to 40MPG on the highway made me skeptical and curious of how it was achieved.
My A6 wagon gets about 10mpg on the highway better than my in-laws Outback, and I assume this was a large portion of the reason.
If you put it in cruise and don't go fast I can hit just under 40 - but I've only had it for a couple months. This is for a 21/28 rated vehicle. Forum posts seem to validate this as well.
City driving it's exactly what you'd expect - couple miles under EPA estimates.
Edit: this is manually calculated, but with a sample size of one. Strangely the onboard computer seems to underestimate in this vehicle, which is the exact opposite of every other car I've driven. Probably the most unexpected bit of owning this car so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F04MXepYiBs
Yes please - just keep that narrative up. Especially anti-energy Democrats. Please do continue to believe and shill that message. I'll even help you spread it :)
High gas prices are great if you own a few oil refineries. Or if you have shorted the market in an expectation of a recession. Or if you own Tesla.
Gas today typically contains 10% bioethanol, and that number is expected to increase in the future. The goal is to burn less fossil fuel, which is a good thing.
Problem is: bioethanol often comes from sugar beet or cane, we literally run our cars on processed food. For Diesel, it is typically mixed with vegetable oil, again, burning food.
There is hope that one day, we will be able to make biofuel in a way that don't compete with food production, but we are not there yet. There are some successful experiments, but nothing at scale.
The sanctions on Russia are only just getting started.
With new car sales in Russia down over 80% in May, the pressure will increase the prices of used cars.
One way or another, Russians are paying for the barbarity of their countrymen, and the price they pay will only continue to get higher.
Alas, that will never happen in the US, but one can dream.
It’s more likely to entrench them, along with build popular support for slashing a lot of climate regulations. Humans don’t like fast change. Trying to force it usually backfires.
And that, there, is the problem. Everywhere in the US is designed, often in legally-enforceable ways, to ensure that cars are prioritized over everything else.
The chicken-egg explanation is a normal consequence of not having anticipated the consequences when urban planning for car travel got going in the 50s. Unfortunate as it may be, but it's catch-22 that can be broken out of.
The unwillingness to break out of it, is because of the fetishization of car technology. This is a completely pathetic for adults to do, and is this toddler-mindset which is the biggest impediment to meaningful change today.
Careful tossing that first stone. This is Hacker News. Surely most people here have made some technology purchasing choices moreso for coolness than for practicality. Cars are simply one particular sort of technology.
We don't have transit for a number of reasons, one is that everything would have to be torn up and rebuilt for high speed rail. Two we have a much lower trust society than places like Europe and Japan. Three it's just so unprofitable and people dislike it so much it never gets funding.
And personally I don't want to be stuck in a bus, train etc. with a bunch of strangers. I prefer the freedom of my personal vehicle.
Oregon is larger than the United Kingdom.
Texas is larger than France.
Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe.
People live in New York City. It's in the US. Those people tend to drive a lot less than those living in, say, Los Angeles—who also unambiguously live in the US. Why?
Yes. Except that I'm not "suggesting" it. I'm stating it as a fact.
Note that "Europe" is also defined by an "arbitrarily-chosen border".
> I prefer the freedom of my personal vehicle.
You're not at odds with each other, allowing multiple methods of transit doesn't encroach on your freedom to drive a car.
What did we do instead? Occupied countries with nothing to show for it, engaged in futile trade wars and allowed financial speculation in everything we produce.
Gas would have to become ludicrously expensive in order for me to make the choice to forfeit so much of my day to commuting. It would be ideal if the city I live in expands the light rail system but that's a decades long process.
Private automobiles aren't a bugfix on urban planning, as someone posted to Mastodon recently, they're the determining cause of sprawl patterns. Personal vehicles, cheap fuel, and high-quality uncongested roads cheapen distance and through the Jevons Paradox increase the amount of space used.
https://mastodon.social/@CarlMuckenhoupt/108465959449696924
Light rail works great ... in reasonably dense urban environments and downtowns. If you have to walk only a few blocks to and from your boarding and disembarking points, they're great. Multi-link travel with transfers and delays is abysmal.
LRT also benefits heavily from dedicated rights of way, no roadway contention from other vehicles, traffic signals optimisation, and the rest.
And a single LRV can replace 40 -- 150+ vehicles on the road, depending on fill capacity.
Here's hoping gas prices will fall rapidly so the less fortunate among us can afford to heat their homes next winter.
Here's hoping gas prices will fall rapidly so that the less fortunate among us can afford the rapid rising food prices that are the result of energy costs.
High gas / diesel prices mean your cost of goods is going to keep going up because cities don't produce anything they consume. Just because this is acceptable to most people on this board's income doesn't mean its a good thing in any way.
It is something like a factor 1.5 to get to my parents and over 2 to my grandparents, much more if they can't pick me up and I have to walk the last 3 miles[0] from the bus stop. I don't know what the multiplier is to my brother, but it is likely to be quite high.
[0]: it can be done, it just takes quite some time.
So, it is just normal that the gas that was around $2-3, today - $7+. Thus the gas isn't "expensive", it is in-line with everything else, and thus wouldn't drastically change any behavior. Giving the instabilities, it wouldn't be surprising to see $10-15 gas.
There is no reason the US should not be completely energy independent. There is plenty of oil to drill, if the democrats would allow it.
https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-da...
And the Keystone Pipeline was shutdown by executive order.
High oil prices do push consumers to choose more efficient vehicles. They also benefit the US by sending way less money to countries that want to harm us - especially Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.
The charging time will likely also go down further which could allow for the batteries to become smaller for most use cases and thus the price come down even more.
And on top of that, if energy prices continue to stay high, the SUV/Truck era might slowly die away and smaller/lighter/aerodynamic cars with better mileage will become the norm. Less metal and smaller motor needed means cheaper car.
https://www.shell.dk/priser-pa-benzin-og-diesel.html
People are still driving (also in cars) ...
The country has made great progress in terms of fuel economy. But the most popular vehicles sold in the USA (full sized pickups) still get like 18MPG. The majority of efficiency gains go into making them larger and more powerful, because there's no economic incentives to make trucks with the size and capability of 90s era trucks, but with double+ the fuel economy. Ford was at least able to be forward-looking and release the Maverick, a small hybrid pickup, at exactly the right time.
Which is perfectly rational. Why drive a car you don't want out of fear that gas prices may someday go up?
The real solution is crank gas taxes up so high that the little people are forced to buy little cars or take the bus, like we think they ought to be doing.
You don't have to buy a fuel efficient car today for an eventuality that may never happen, but you definitely don't have a leg to stand on when fuel gets more expensive and it suddenly costs you 10x more per month in fuel -- that's on (hypothetical) you.
I presume not given Telsa recent layoffs.
Granted, we're looking to buy because old EV, not gas prices. But whatever your reason for wanting one, good luck.
They’re going to get real mad when they do and find out what it’s like because none of us (in aggregate) seem to care enough to make sure public transit funded. And city/suburb design often makes walking/biking impractical/dangerous/impossible.
Are they? On my drive(s) today, there were plenty of fuel-inefficient trucks driving like bats out of hell!