Are petrol prices too high for our weak economy?

by Stox 16 Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:50 am

First topic message reminder :

UK petrol prices set official record

Do you believe that petrol prices are far too high and are now damaging our weak economy?
Diesel prices are also at a record level
Petrol price reaches record high
Oil price dips from fresh highs
Campaigners call for fuel duty cut
The average price of unleaded petrol has hit a record high, according to government figures.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said the average price of unleaded in the UK was 137.3 pence per litre on Monday 5 March, which was 1.1p higher than the week before.

The previous record of 137.05p was set on 9 May 2011.

Last week, industry analysts Experian Catalist said petrol had hit a record high of 137.44p a litre.

The average diesel price is also at a record high, government figures show, at 144.7p a litre, up 0.8p from the previous record, which was set last week.

Petrol has been pushed up by oil prices, which have risen in recent months due to tensions over Iran's nuclear plans and unrest in the region.

Prices have also been buoyed by the exchange rate.

Although the price of crude oil - measured in US dollars - has yet to rise above the peak it recorded in 2008, the dollar is more than 25% stronger against the pound than it was in 2008, meaning that oil prices are much higher when measured in pounds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business

by astra Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:41 pm

They will tax water by the litre

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:00 pm

QUOTE: "learn how to affordably crack water to get hydrogen"

That's all it takes?

by ROB Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:32 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
QUOTE: "learn how to affordably crack water to get hydrogen"

That's all it takes?

No. See Re: Are petrol prices too high for our weak economy?, by RockOnBrother on Sat 10 Mar 2012 - 17:40 (click), authored by me, viewable on page 1 of this thread.

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:34 pm

Open sez me

by ROB Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:40 pm

OW,

Here it is for your convenience.

Sat 10 Mar 2012 - 17:40 RockOnBrother wrote:

The cost of installing roll cages, collapsible steering wheels, front quarter crush zones, rear quarter crush zones, and air bags in all passenger vehicles was insurmountable until it became unprofitable to car companies to not equip their cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, and minivans with the full array of safety equipment.

It’s a matter of providing the right incentive. When British Petroleum (BP), Shell, and Exxon-Mobil find that it’s unprofitable not to develop affordable hydrogen-producing technology, affordable hydrogen-producing technology will be developed.

Hit ‘em where it hurts, and they will listen.

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:25 pm

Should come along with the perpetual-motion machine then.

by ROB Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:45 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Should come along with the perpetual-motion machine then.

Nope.

Hydrogen power via fuel cells is (1) scientifically sound, (2) field tested, and (3) proven reliable. In fact, fuel cells were field tested and proven reliable on several manned moon missions (I believe they were called “Apollo” missions) during the early seventies.

In addition, General Motors skateboard technology, based upon tried and true fuel cell technology and tried and true electric motor technology, is also (1) scientifically sound, (2) field tested (Washington D.C. area, early 2000s), and (3) proven reliable.

Conversely, “the perpetual-motion machine” is neither (1) scientifically sound, (2) field tested, nor (3) proven reliable.

by oftenwrong Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:47 pm

The production of Hydrogen is nevertheless still dependent upon an ample supply of electricity, so just use electricity and cut out the middle man.

by ROB Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:21 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
The production of Hydrogen is nevertheless still dependent upon an ample supply of electricity, so just use electricity and cut out the middle man.

So I drive one hundred miles, maybe two hours, in my electric car, run out of juice, and plug it up for eight hours.

So I drive three hundred fifty miles, maybe seven hours, in my skateboard technology, fuel-cell-and-electric-motor car, run out of hydrogen, hook it up to the pump, fill ‘er up in about three minutes (same as gasoline), and keep on steppin’.

by trevorw2539 Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:39 pm

RockOnBrother Today at 11:21 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
The production of Hydrogen is nevertheless still dependent upon an ample supply of electricity, so just use electricity and cut out the middle man.

So I drive one hundred miles, maybe two hours, in my electric car, run out of juice, and plug it up for eight hours.

So I drive three hundred fifty miles, maybe seven hours, in my skateboard technology, fuel-cell-and-electric-motor car, run out of hydrogen, hook it up to the pump, fill ‘er up in about three minutes (same as gasoline), and keep on steppin’

Marvellous. I'll have two Laughing

by ROB Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:31 am

Trevor,

Check out the video. I'll have the net two!

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:44 am

by RockOnBrother Today at 12:31 am

Trevor,

Check out the video. I'll have the net two!

Watched it. I know they aren't available YET, but you've heard of cryonics. See you in 3012:lol:. Don't forget the first 2 are mine:lol:

by bobby Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:20 am

As the planet is round, it seems that we will allways be at the top of a gert great big hill. If that is the case we shouldnt need an engine at all as we should all be travelling downhill at any time after the initial movement is made. Very Happy

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:32 am

Sat 10 Mar 2012 - 17:40 RockOnBrother wrote:

The cost of installing roll cages, collapsible steering wheels, front quarter crush zones, rear quarter crush zones, and air bags in all passenger vehicles was insurmountable until it became unprofitable to car companies to not equip their cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, and minivans with the full array of safety equipment.

It’s a matter of providing the right incentive. When British Petroleum (BP), Shell, and Exxon-Mobil find that it’s unprofitable not to develop affordable hydrogen-producing technology, affordable hydrogen-producing technology will be developed.....

Self-propelled transport must have seemed incredible in the age of the horse-drawn vehicle, and although most scientific advance since then has been accelerated by War, we still have no realistic alternative to the Internal Combustion Engine, even though it is hideously wasteful of fossil fuel and has been around since 1898. "BP and Exxon-Mobil" would certainly have investigated alternatives, if for no better reason than the sheer cost of geological exploration.

Perhaps there was a missed opportunity in the NASA space program, which gave us the non-stick skillet but produced no better alternative to the brute force of tons of dangerous propellant. Indeed, there were hardly any useful advances in terms of energy sources over the Nazi experiments near the end of World War 2.

QUOTE: " affordable hydrogen-producing technology will be developed....."

It's been a long time since the Hindenberg airship burned out at Lakehurst in 1937, so what's keeping them?

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:57 am

by bobby Today at 11:20 am

As the planet is round, it seems that we will allways be at the top of a gert great big hill. If that is the case we shouldnt need an engine at all as we should all be travelling downhill at any time after the initial movement is made. Very Happy

By my calculations if you take your handbrake off gravity and rotation of the earth cancel themselves out. You should remain stationary.

xy2-zx3=yxw 3xzy+g2en x mc 2.

But then algebra, trigonometry etc were always a mystery to me. Wink

My friend from Alpha Centauri gave me the above. It's the best translation I can give, but it still doesn't make sense. Smile

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:04 pm

Someone is confusing Gravity with Centrifugal Force, but who's counting?

Stop the World, I want to get off.

by bobby Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:24 pm

Trev said: My friend from Alpha Centauri gave me the above. It's the best translation I can give, but it still doesn't make sense. Smile

That not a problem trev, Roc will be along soon to put us all right.

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:47 pm

oftenwrong Today at 12:04 pm

Someone is confusing Gravity with Centrifugal Force, but who's counting?

That's me, but then I don't know my centrifugal force from my...............erm..........centripetal force. Always thought centripetal was the middle of a flower! How wrong can you be. Embarassed

by ROB Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:31 pm

Sat 10 Mar 2012 - 17:40 RockOnBrother wrote:
The cost of installing roll cages, collapsible steering wheels, front quarter crush zones, rear quarter crush zones, and air bags in all passenger vehicles was insurmountable until it became unprofitable to car companies to not equip their cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, vans, and minivans with the full array of safety equipment.

It’s a matter of providing the right incentive. When British Petroleum (BP), Shell, and Exxon-Mobil find that it’s unprofitable not to develop affordable hydrogen-producing technology, affordable hydrogen-producing technology will be developed.

Hit ‘em where it hurts, and they will listen.

oftenwrong wrote:
Self-propelled transport must have seemed incredible in the age of the horse-drawn vehicle, and although most scientific advance since then has been accelerated by War, we still have no realistic alternative to the Internal Combustion Engine

Yes we do. Skateboard technology is a scientifically sound, field tested, reliable alternative tot internal combustion technology. Moreover, as skateboard platforms use fuel cell to power electric engines, producing water as its by-product, skateboard technology provides a huge advantage over internal combustion technology pollution wise. And for those who are concerned about the effect of crude oil consumption on global warming, it’s a no-brainer.

oftenwrong wrote:
BP and Exxon-Mobil" would certainly have investigated alternatives, if for no better reason than the sheer cost of geological exploration.

Not until it’s no longer profitable. BP, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil are motivated by money, pure and simple. An upheaval in infrastructure would in and of itself be extremely costly, and as long as big oil companies can make money as oil companies, that’s what they’ll do.

If on the other hand certain governments taxed the fire out of oil production while simultaneously providing huge tax breaks and other monetary incentives to companies that (1) expand hydrogen at the pump infrastructure field tested by General Motors to nationwide size in those countries, and (2) develop affordable “water-cracking” technology to provide affordable hydrogen at the pump, BP, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil would suddenly be airing commercials touting themselves as “energy companies, not oil companies” as they scurried about chasing the new source of money.

Hit ‘em where it hurts, and hit ‘em where they live. If you’re unaware of where that place might be, maybe the O’Jays can help.

oftenwrong wrote:
Perhaps there was a missed opportunity in the NASA space program, which gave us the non-stick skillet but produced no better alternative to the brute force of tons of dangerous propellant.

NASA’s propellant, hydrogen, is far less dangerous than gasoline. Examine videos of the Hindenburg, and you’ll see that the hydrogen quickly burned up and away.

There are several videos I’ve seen comparing gasoline and hydrogen automobile fires. I’d take the hydrogen fire, burning up and away in a hurry, to gasoline fires, spreading out at ground level and persisting.

oftenwrong wrote:
QUOTE: " affordable hydrogen-producing technology will be developed....."
It's been a long time since the Hindenberg airship burned out at Lakehurst in 1937, so what's keeping them?

Money. And if you’re okay remaining at the mercy of the royal Saudi family and the rest of OPEC, do nothing to disturb the status quo.

Meanwhile, although I can’t do much, I’ll do everything I can to upset the applecart.

Just for information, there’s no such thing as centrifugal force. That fact was drummed into my head once upon a time by physics professors.

For anyone who cares, it’s centripetal force.

by bobby Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:29 pm

There you are, I told you!!

by astra Mon Mar 12, 2012 5:51 pm

there’s no such thing as centrifugal force

'Skooze likkle Moi!

What then is a centrifuge for?
If it's not for making pilots bring up every meal from the last 2 weeks or to separate the different constituants in, say, blood?

AND, AND! there IS a lot in the pronounciation! Very Happy

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:35 pm

Quote Astra:)

What then is a centrifuge for?

Unmixing cocktails?

by ROB Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:38 pm

astra wrote:

there’s no such thing as centrifugal force
What then is a centrifuge for?
If it's not for making pilots bring up every meal from the last 2 weeks or to separate the different constituants in, say, blood?

AND, AND! there IS a lot in the pronounciation!

Check it out: Centripetal, Centrifuge.

by astra Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:52 pm

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20centrifugal%20force.htm

http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/circular-motion/revise-it/angular-acceleration-and-centripetal-force

OK OK so centripital is but it isn't, like centrifugal force, just that centrofugal force goes from the centre of the circle, and the other goes TO the centre

It cannot be said that one or the other does not exist.

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:56 pm

QUOTE: ".... we still have no realistic alternative to the Internal Combustion Engine ....

Yes we do. Skateboard technology.

Oh. Yeah. Guess I forgot about skateboard technology. Onward and Upward , eh, Guys?

by astra Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:59 pm

what about Maxim? He's a Clydesdale GEE Gee!

A draught horse, just don't stand in his way! (or behind him) Shocked

It's them thar beans Sur! Embarassed

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:57 pm

Don't know if this is the right thread but.

Did you see the item on the news tonight about the 80+ year old woman who is taking a 'refresher' driving lesson after being caught for speeding - twice. Talk about being a fast 'worker'.

80+. Still plenty of driving time for me yet. Smile

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:26 pm

Always good to hear from those who do not intend to get old.

by ROB Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:38 am

Astra,

Unless you're a physicist (armchair included, like me) or an engineer, “it don’t matter none.”

by ROB Tue Mar 13, 2012 3:57 am

oftenwrong wrote:
QUOTE: ".... we still have no realistic alternative to the Internal Combustion Engine ....

RockOnBrother wrote:
Yes we do. Skateboard technology is a scientifically sound, field tested, reliable alternative tot internal combustion technology. Moreover, as skateboard platforms use fuel cell to power electric engines, producing water as its by-product, skateboard technology provides a huge advantage over internal combustion technology pollution wise. And for those who are concerned about the effect of crude oil consumption on global warming, it’s a no-brainer.

oftenwrong wrote:
Oh. Yeah. Guess I forgot about skateboard technology.

No you did not.

by blueturando Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:49 am

skateboard technology

I was never any good at Skateboarding....No balance! Think I will stick to my Car for now Smile

by ROB Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:43 am

Blueturando,

Thank you, my brother.

by Stox 16 Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:24 am

I sort of think we should get back to the cost of petrol and our economy

by ROB Fri Mar 16, 2012 3:22 am

Stox,

I was told that if the average price of gasoline n the U.S. reached at least $5.00 per gallon and stayed there, the transition to a hydrogen power infrastructure would begin within six months.

Can citizens in the US and the UK take the hit long enough for this prediction to prove true or untrue?

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:32 am

In the UK, gasoline is called "petrol" but it's the same animal. The price-hike since 1974 has not come as a shock for British drivers, since there has always been a heavy Duty impost, which adds about 60% to the price at the pump. From 1971 when our currency was decimalised, the cost of petrol (or diesel fuel) has risen by a factor of 30x.

Nevertheless, the volume of traffic continues to increase, from which it is evident that people will find the money from somewhere rather than give up the car.

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:18 pm

Quote oftenwrong

Nevertheless, the volume of traffic continues to increase, from which it is evident that people will find the money from somewhere rather than give up the car.

I blame it on the old folk. If they would stop driving it would give us 72 year olds more room. Very Happy

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:50 pm

and the women. What are they doing driving round in cars when they could be scrubbing the front doorstep?

Remember Grate Polish, and Cardinal red tile polish? Cleaning all the Brass, Monday wash-day, Make-do-and-mend. Keep 'em pregnant and barefoot, eh? But a new kneeling-mat for Christmas, mind. Fair's fair!

by astra Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:56 pm

You forgot the Blackening for the Cooking Range!!

Tsk Tsk!

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:09 pm

Mrs Hornby is not amused by recent offerings on here.

She is demanding being permitted to speak... and it's not even her birthday...

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:45 pm

Are petrol prices too high for our weak economy? - Page 2 Empty

Quote by Oftenwrong

Remember Grate Polish, and Cardinal red tile polish? Cleaning all the Brass, Monday wash-day, Make-do-and-mend. Keep 'em pregnant and barefoot, eh? But a new kneeling-mat for Christmas, mind. Fair's fair!

by astra Today at 12:56 pm

You forgot the Blackening for the Cooking Range!!

Stop it, you two. You're making all maudlin - remembering the old days.

One thing. If, like me, you were brought up in the country, your Saturday job was chopping wood for the above cooking range. And for the copper on bath nights. Friday.

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:34 pm

I have a feeling Supper may be served cold tonight.

by Sponsored content