Just Curious what people round the world are paying for Fuel at the Moment.

Here in the UK we are upto an average of about 94p or $1.73 a Litre on Unleaded.
Thats £3.56 or $6.52 a Gallon.

Where I am in Australia, we're at around US$1.84 per litre.

BTW, what's the conversion from litres to gallons? (There are two types of gallons, aren't there? American ones and British ones?)

Yes, I'm using US Gallons

1 US gallon = 3.7854118 liters

$3.15 per gallon.

EUR 1.027 a litre (USD 1.282)
considering that we're the poorest country in EU,
there's quite a desperation over this

That's 4.853 USD per US Gallon

Hey, the prices are dropping in the Dallas/Ft Worth area! In many cases, it's already below $3.00 and falling ....some stations have gas as low as $2.74. Pretty neat, huh?

And y'all thought that the sky was fallin', didn't you? But old Baron Max just sat back and drank his beer and smiled -- he's been through it all before and the sky ain't fallen yet. ...LOL!

Baron Max

sure, it is not falling, but it's getting pretty pricy for many people to move around, including transportation of goods, i.e., everything gets more expensive (heating too)
many will freeze to death this year, because heating would cost too much

well yes, c'est la vie, but I just want to point out that any increase in petrol costs is severly felt in poorer countries

Here in Ireland, in the last year it has gone up from around €0.89 to some €1.18 to €1.37 depending on the station you stop at. We have also had a 40% rise in house hold gas and Electric has gone sky high to.

However these are not the figures everyone should be looking at, the figures you should all have you eyes on, is the profits of the Emegy companies. While most of us are faceing a Winter with less heating in our houses and having to walk the kids to school or get the bikes out and serviced, the like of Shell and the others are looking at record profits.

Hum, somethings not adding up I thinks, The Customer is at a stand still while the Fat cats get fatter still.

I can understand them putting up prices if there profits remained exactly the same, if they did they would have no need to cut staff or anything.

To me it just looks like we are paying for them to report a massive rise in profits.

Time for Action I think ?

Yes! The same is here! There is a monopoly in heating services (a heritage from the USSR infrastructure), but the company is showing record profits.
Same for petrolium, because due to the EU regulations we can get our petrolium only from one plant in Lithuania which belongs to Russians, so there is a monopoly there too, though not at the distributor level.
And we can't buy petrolium from elsewhere, because the quality from those sources is too low for EU standarts.

:bugeye: Like I said its time for action, we are being drive into the ground while some poeple are going home with a big ;) :cool: on there faces.

Thing is its going to take a big world wide push to stop this, any Ideas ?

Here in Sao Paulo (Brazil) we have a choice Alcohol or gasoline at every station. Cars have been using alcohol for about 30 years in Brazil. 12 month growing season, cheap land and labor make Alcohol very competive although for several years about a decade ago it was not the more economical fuel because the world price of sugar was high and that of petroleum was low. Now days most new cars are "flex fuel" and can burn any mixture or pure of either fuel.

Currently the real is relatively strong WRT US dollar (2.30R$ buys a dollar) Alcohol costs 0.97R$/ liter and regular gas about R$2.30/ liter. High test is more expensive. There is less energy in alcohol and a common rule of thumb is that if alcohol cost is 40% less than gas, buy the alcohol to reduce your cost per Km of driving.

Brazil would like to sell/license its very advance (30years of development and billions of Km of driving experience) to rest of world and then export some of our cheap alcohol, but your driving costs are in the political control of leaders in the pockets of the oil industry, especially in the US where the top leader and many of the top men themselves were oil industry CEOs. They and the automotive industry want you to buy the big gas hogs you do, so relative to the rest of the world, they tax gas less and under fund public health etc. US is very rich, but far from the top in public services, like public transportations etc. which can reduce global warming etc. Katrina is one of the prices you will increasingly pay most years for filling the air with CO2 at the rate you do. Expect worse as the years go by.

Also note that sugar cane alcohol reduces gobal warming as it removes carbon from the air - far more than the cars powed by alcohol release. Not only is part left in the ground (roots) when cut, but only the fermented juice goes to still. The pressed cane stocks are sometimes burned to make electrical energy or steam to directly power the cane crushers extracting the juice. If not used this way, it typically becomes part of cattle feed - Sorry to tell you James R, but Brazil now has passed Austrila as the world leading producer for beef so we have a lot of cows to feed.

I can not understand why US voters are so stupid as to elect people more intererested in the health and wealth of the oil industry than in Alcohol - a proven, clean, economical, renewable, energy system.

Also note that sugar cane alcohol reduces gobal warming as it removes carbon from the air - far more than the cars powed by alcohol release. Not only is part left in the ground (roots) when cut, but only the fermented juice goes to still.

That is quite a statement. Burning alchol removes carbon from the air:-0
Dear, do you know what rotting is? Rotting=slow burning; it's a part of carbon cycle which is returning carbon (mostly as carbon dioxide, methane,...) back into environment. Thus, planting trees, sugar cane, whatever to reduce carbon dioxide level=stupid, because carbon cycle will eventually release all the carbon dioxide captured by plants in the environment.


- Sorry to tell you James R, but Brazil now has passed Austrila as the world leading producer for beef so we have a lot of cows to feed.
What a pride; to cut unique rain forest - to grow beef -in order to feed already fat westerners - in order to make few dirt rich Brazilians richer. Neo liberal slavery as a source of pride. Who would think. BTW, for how long Brazil can exploit rain forest soils before they will erode and landscape will turn into moonscape?


I can not understand why US voters are so stupid as to elect people more intererested in the health and wealth of the oil industry than in Alcohol - a proven, clean, economical, renewable, energy system.

Before calling somebody stupid you should critically examine your articles of belief (alcohol, in this case). If you'll take a sober look, you'll see how far is your faith into clean alcohol is from reality.

Facts: 1) Alcohol is not clean (neither sun nor wind energy).
2) Alcohol is energy LOSER i.e. you cannot make closed cycle energetic system based exclusively on alcohol.
3) Transforming other form of energy (coal, natural gas, whatever) into alcohol is not energy efficient by definition. It makes much more sense to use the energy of coal, etc. directly without alcohol middleman.
4} Price is not a proof of anything, cause it depends on so many factors

2.99 agallon this friday, I waited for the prices to drop, it was 3.46 last week!

I haven't driven my car in 5 months. I still have $1.83/gal (or so) gas in my tank.

$3.98 in hawaii. By the way, its bad to leave your car sitting around for 5 months...

...Thus, planting trees, sugar cane, whatever to reduce carbon dioxide level=stupid, because carbon cycle will eventually release all the carbon dioxide captured by plants in the environment.
What a pride; to cut unique rain forest - to grow beef -in order to feed already fat westerners - in order to make few dirt rich Brazilians richer. Neo liberal slavery as a source of pride. Who would think. BTW, for how long Brazil can exploit rain forest soils before they will erode and landscape will turn into moonscape? A careful analyse of the energy cycle of sugar cane to alcohol does not show much net energy production or loss. The energy cost of fertilizer, transport of the cane to the processing plants, operation of the plant (crushing and distillation), delivery of the alcohol to filling stations, etc. Some studies show there is net energy loss, especially when alcohol is produce in Iowa from corn or French sugar beets. Others studies show a slight net gain. In any case, compared to fosil fuels, it takes little brains to see than it is much more of a self-sustaining system than they are. Certainly it can be a renewable energy source.

The energy cost of the distillation process can be greatly reduced (at least by 75%) by good insulation of the still and counter-flow heat exchangers that pre heat the incoming juice as they condense the alcohol and sdischarged hot water. That is even if only half of the currently under-utalized technically feasible known technology were deployed, no study woud question the net energy gain of an alcohol economy or its sustainability.

Alcohol and wind are the most attractive and definitely economicaly viable at forms of solar energy, especailly if the true societal cost in health expenses, etc. of fossil fuel is correctly included. Both are much cleaner and much less damaging to the enviroment than the current petrolelum / coal energy system currently providing most of the energy. Both are needed as wind does not not provide portable power (for cars etc.) With these rational facts, not your unsupported assertions, I will call anyone disputing them "stupid."

Alcohol is a very clean burning fuel, but in any internal combuston engine, you will make a lot of undesirable NOx and alcohol is no exception. However, if the alcohol were burnt in an external combuston Sterling engine you could breath the NOx free exhaust if it had oxygen in it still.

Half of of your four concluding "facts" are true. Certainly converting coal is more efficiently as an energy source if it is directly used than by converting to some "middleman" as you put it, but this is one argument against the "hydrongen economy" not an "alcohol economy." Why bring up this "strawman" unless, you felt that you must make some concluding statements that are true. No one was arguing that economics is simple, depends on only a few things, or proves much. Both your true conclusion statements are strawmen. Your other two are simply false. Your conclusion were:

"Facts: 1) Alcohol is not clean (neither sun nor wind energy).
2) Alcohol is energy LOSER i.e. you cannot make closed cycle energetic system based exclusively on alcohol.
3) Transforming other form of energy (coal, natural gas, whatever) into alcohol is not energy efficient by definition. It makes much more sense to use the energy of coal, etc. directly without alcohol middleman.
4} Price is not a proof of anything, cause it depends on so many factors."

I have already addressed (1) above. On (2) I will only note that an alcohol torch burns so cleanly that the flame is dangerously difficult to even see.

On the very first sentence of your post, you are sadly missinformed. There is more carbon stored in soil humus than all the coal that man has ever burnt. Your best argument you missed. Simple farming with a plow turns up this humus and it has recently been realized that the greater exposure of the soil stored carbon is probably one of the major, if not the largest, contributor to global CO2 gases. I don't know what to do about this as people need to eat, but if all became vegetarians it would help a lot.

Finally down to $3.00 a gallon.

$3.53 in Chicago ....$2.15 S.E. Chicago (where you could be killed)
It hurts when you have a Hummer :(

$3.53 in Chicago ....$2.15 S.E. Chicago (where you could be killed)
It hurts when you have a Hummer :(

The original, or the H2? Either way, drive it around S.E. Chicago :D The prices keep rising here....

£0.98 at my local, but that is more expensive than most UK sellers

Hi, new here..

In Norway gas is about $6 pr US gallon. 10-11 NOK pr litre.

Hey, the prices are dropping in the Dallas/Ft Worth area! In many cases, it's already below $3.00 and falling ....some stations have gas as low as $2.74. Pretty neat, huh?

And y'all thought that the sky was fallin', didn't you? But old Baron Max just sat back and drank his beer and smiled -- he's been through it all before and the sky ain't fallen yet. ...LOL!

Baron Max
Cruisin' into the apocaplypse with beer goggles on, are we?

There are two things that the newspapers and TV Cable News outfits are not covering very well. One is that the Port of New Orleans is not functioning, with poor prospects for a quick recovery, and with it will go much of the Midwestern grain harvest. Another thing that has fallen off the radar screen is the damage done to the oil and gas infrastructure around the Gulf Coast, especially the onshore facilities for storing and transporting stuff, and for marshaling the crews and equipment to fix stuff. The US is going to run short of its customary supplies for a long time. The idea that these things will not affect an economy of ceaseless mobility is not realistic.

- http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary15.html

And the hurricane season isn't over yet...

Now at $2.49

Per liter, 1.45 euro for Euro95. Snatched from here (http://www.shell.com/home/nl-nl/html/iwgen/app_profile/nl-nl_hoeveelkost.html). With a bit of educated guessing, you can experiment with the second form at the bottom of the page (it helps if you know that "vanaf" translates to "from", and "tot" to "until"). In januari 2003 the price was 1.17 euro per liter. At the start of september 2005, the price was 1.55 euro per liter.

In Amsterdam though, you do not travel by car. You bike.

A careful analyse of the energy cycle of sugar cane to alcohol does not show much net energy production or loss.
Well, careful analysis of modern science suggests that most of scientists are mediocre/dishonest/moneygrabbing leeches sitting on the neck of working people and producing nothing but garbage. The story with "bright" alcohol future is one more proof of that. Billy, paper energetic balances "wanna get that $grant$" scientists are playing with are nearly meaningless/useless. Why in the hell nobody will prove that alcohol releases more energy that it's been consumed in its manufacturing by building just a small alcohol making apparatus working on alcohol??? No fertilizer, no other shit, just setup for making and distilling alcohol working on alcohol to begin with??? No! That's too much to ask! learned community prefers milking $cow$ using meaningless energy balances to the last.

I guess, you know that there is a gigantic ravine between theory and practice. In the real world, one would need to consider heat capacities of alcohol, apparaturs, mash.... In the real world, one would need to consider heat losses and design of apparatus. In the real world, one would need to consider tonnes of stuff which is not considered in "pulling data mostly out of one's ass" theoretical paper energy balances.

Sure, I'm not a bright science star peddling bright alcohol future, but I do have some education and I DO know how to make moonshine. I made it many times. So, combining this backgrounds I came up with a dirt simple experiment to test the viability of alcohol future. I simply cannot get it why the science moguls have not conducted it yet.

Here it goes. One takes a unit mass of corn, for example. One manufacture simple alcohol making/distilling apparatus (illiterate peasants could make it). One buy luquid fuel burner (it will work with any liquid that can burn).
One ferments corns, produces/distill alcohol using any source of energy (electricity,coal,wood,whatever). Then, one collects all the alcohol he made, fuel liquid burner (well, it's simple experiment. No need for great precision) with it - take the same amount of corn-ferment it-produces and distill alcohol. Then, one will measure leftover of alcohol from the original batch. The amount of leftover will be the measure of the energy efficiency of corn-alcohol. If leftover will be sufficient, one may proceed with fueling a tractor with alcohol to grow N units of corn. And so on. I think the idea is clear. Playing with meaningless numbers is much more $profitable$. Too much education, too little common sense and decency.

A
The energy cost of the distillation process can be greatly reduced (at least by 75%) by good insulation of the still and counter-flow heat exchangers that pre heat the incoming juice as they condense the alcohol and sdischarged hot water.
Trust me, most staff scientists (those with real jobs, not garbage like postdoc, etc.) know how to make $. Not all know how to make good/decent science, but everybody knows how to make $ in the science. It's a must. Alcohol talks last for 30 years. Your magic distiller is not build yet. Being cynical (a.k.a. art of critical observation), it comes to my mind that building magic apparatus may somehow separate scientists with their money. That's why your miracle of technology will not be built for quite some time.



Alcohol and wind are the most attractive and definitely economicaly viable at forms of solar energy, especailly if the true societal cost in health expenses, etc. of fossil fuel is correctly included.

I drive through states a lot. There is some number of windmills in TX, WY, NE, CA. The most impressive field is located approximately 60-80 miles South East of Los Angeles. The view is truly impressive. Hundreds of gigantic windmills slowly turning their blades. After majestic view disappered, the cynical thought again came to my mind: how much energy was spent to produce tens of thousands tonnes of steel, concrete and other materials for those huge windmills. how much energy was spent to machine, assemble and transport all those windmills, and so on? Common sense suggests that gigantic wind mill should be rotating for nearly eternity (in human lives terms) to give back the energy which was spent on it. Here comes the problem with all so called "renewable" sources of energy. They AIN'T, they are energy losers (except maybe hydroelectric power) considering everything.

All buzzed about renewable sources are nothing but "transformers" of fossil fuel energy into more appealing (aesthetically speaking, conscience soothing) forms. Or, one may consider "renewable" sources as energy "over the time" spreaders. We burn incredible amount of fossils in relatively short time to manufacture a windmill, for example; windmill works for dozens of years to give that energy back, and fails to do so :). So actually, it's inefficient energy spreader.

Alcohol and wind are the most attractive and definitely economicaly viable at forms of solar energy, especailly if the true societal cost in health expenses, etc. of fossil fuel is correctly included.

Statement is incorrect for the time being because huge amount of fossils is burnt to manufacture so called "renewable" sources, which need to work for dozens of years to give the energy back. Sure thing, if fossils are burnt in industrial cities populated by poor folks and "renewable" sources are installed in gated communities far away, one may see why it can be attractive.


Both are much cleaner and much less damaging to the enviroment than the current petrolelum / coal energy system currently providing most of the energy.
statements are patently wrong for time being. See above.


Alcohol is a very clean burning fuel,
If alcohol will be used to make alcohol from scratch, your statement will be more or less correct (except CO2 part :)). For time being, statement is patently wrong cause lots and lots of fossils are burnt to produce "clean" burning alcohol.


combuston Sterling engine you could breath the NOx free exhaust if it had oxygen in it still. Sterling engine is good 1) to excite young science aspiring kids and teens 2) for sci - fi stories / movies. It's bad pretty much for everything else.


Certainly converting coal is more efficiently as an energy source if it is directly used than by converting to some "middleman" as you put it, but this is one argument against the "hydrongen economy" not an "alcohol economy." Why bring up this "strawman" unless,
Well, don't you see similarity between two imaginary economies. Both hydrogen and alcohol economies need external fuels for their existence (for time being). Until closed circle alcohol energy system (i.e. alcohol is used to make alcohol) is built, hydrogen and alcohol economies are deadborn twins.

On the very first sentence of your post, you are sadly missinformed. There is more carbon stored in soil humus than all the coal that man has ever burnt. Your best argument you missed.
Humus.OK. There is carbon there. Well, you've forgot to mention: 1) there are quite a number of soils, as far as amount of humus/thickness of fertile soil is concerned.

Black soils found mostly in former steppes/prairies are the richest. Forest soils are extremely poor from standpoint of humus content/thickness (Ring the bell, Brazil?) 2) It takes about 100 years for an undisturbed prairie to increase the thickness of rich in humus fertile soil layer by 1 cm. 3) Any kind of modern/ancient agriculture employing soil tilling is "unnatural"; it destroys natural humus making processes; it slowly (or rapidly) depletes soil of humus (lets not forget inevitable soil erosion too). In modern industrially farmed soils significant share of organisms responsible for humus making are simply killed off. Thus, no matter what you plant industrially (sugar cane or something else) the max you can hope for is that you'll not squander thin fertile layer. Fertile soils are nonrenewable in the terms of human life. If oil will come to the end, we can walk (those who'll survive). If we'll squander precious soil for us to be able to drive, that's gonna hurt.

To summarize: trees do not produce humus in any significant amount, as forest soils may suggest; any commercial tilling impairs soils ability to generate humus in the amount sufficient to maintain original humus content. Natural Humus making process is painfully long (as for humans). I'll not question the content of carbon in humus. Scientists must know. However, keep in mind that because humus making process is so darn long, You'll need to divide impressive number of carbon in humus by a factor with many zeros to get an estimate what is achievable within limits of a human life (if humans will decide to stop eating for a while). Any other number is meaningless for humans. Also, you'll need to think about the food you are going to eat while humus is saving us from CO2.

Just Curious what people round the world are paying for Fuel at the Moment.

Here in the UK we are upto an average of about 94p or $1.73 a Litre on Unleaded.
Thats £3.56 or $6.52 a Gallon.
$2.73 a gal.
Fucky-ducky hate this place...

All buzzed about renewable sources are nothing but "transformers" of fossil fuel energy into more appealing (aesthetically speaking, conscience soothing) forms. Or, one may consider "renewable" sources as energy "over the time" spreaders. We burn incredible amount of fossils in relatively short time to manufacture a windmill, for example; windmill works for dozens of years to give that energy back, and fails to do so :). So actually, it's inefficient energy spreader.

Do you have stats on the windmill lifetimes? I want to see.

Check out an article in the National Geographic magazine on energy production by the various methods ....oil, nuclear and windmills. You'll be surprised and, more importantly, you'll be educated.

Windmills use up a horrendous amount of clear, open space and the production of electric energy to power a city requires many tens of square miles! And they "pollute" the natural scenery, too!

Nuclear energy is the only way to go, folks.

Baron Max

I like how windmills look :)
And there's plenty of empty space.

Of course nuclear energy is better, but not for the reasons you see windmills as bad.

Windmills are also a source of noise "pollutet", i dont think may think about this, but when say a 30m wing goes true the air, it makes a fair amount of noice. In Denmark there is a rule that windmills must me place at a minimum 800M away from any form residence, and still its audible as a low vous vousv vous sound.

9.83Dkr or 1.32€ for 1L of unlead 95

http://www.shell.com/home/PlainPageServlet?FC=/dk-da/html/iwgen/prices/servicestation/app_stationspriser_1906_1037.html

Humus.OK. There is carbon there. Well, you've forgot to mention: 1) there are quite a number of soils, as far as amount of humus/thickness of fertile soil is concerned. ... Any kind of modern/ancient agriculture employing soil tilling is "unnatural"; it destroys natural humus making processes; ... I was only trying to get people to be concerned about some of the things you seem to know. - That the plow and chain saw may be a greater source of CO2 than the gasoline-burning car! (I don't have much to offer to fight the chain saw), but sugar cane producing alcohol takes ALL of its carbon from the air and when that alcohol is burnt, releases only PART of it back into the atmosphere, so it does help with the global heating problem.

The part not returned to the air, usually ends up improving the soil, perhaps after passing thru a cow, and the cane still standing in the field is storing/ per acre, more that the grass filled US parries, etc. As Brazil has been driving alcohol powered cars for 30 years and developed the technology to a high level, using alcohol to cut your car's fuel cost in half is not some dream, but an established fact in wide scale use.

You don't have any connection to the Iowa corn growers, who cannot honestly compete with Brazil’s cane derived alcohol / cheap land/ low cost labor/ 12-month growing season/ etc. do you? They are keeping the population of US ignorant of the facts via their Washington lobbyists and restrictive quotas that prevent "Joe US" from driving his car at significantly lower cost using existing, proven alcohol-fueled cars. - They have a lot to lose if "Joe US" ever wakes up.

Fortunately, the no plowing or "no till" approach to feeding us and our animals (Eating meat is a very inefficient, indirect use of sunshine. - All becoming vegetarians is unlikely, except where the poor dominate the culture, like India, but that would help with global warming and do not forget that methane the rudiment cows produce is much worse per molecule than CO2.)

You comments are somewhat off base here - I never said that all or even most land soils are rich in humus. Only that the global total of carbon stored in in soil and plants living (especial big ones like trees) exceeds the total mankind has released by use of petroleum. - I find that a surprising, little known fact in a recent study done in England.

...for the time being because huge amount of fossils is burnt to manufacture so called "renewable" sources, {Alcohol & wind} which need to work for dozens of years to give the energy back. ... I agree about alcohol produced from corn in Iowa, or from sugar beets in southern France, but not from sugar cane in several tropical regions.
Please support your statement (only a wrong opinion, I think) with some journal published references (Not Joe Blowhard's web page).
Your view is certainly correct about the "Hydrogen Economy," a negative energy source if there ever was one. Direct you attack there, not at tropical region alcohol.

down to $2.39 at this time

Would any of you purchase fuel mixed with Ethenol?
In Australia now - car manufactures are behind ethenol mixed fuel - and claim it doesn't actually damage you're engine.

- Shifty Russian
www.WhoMakesYouSick.com ... Tell the world

Neither will hydrogen. I'ts 2.92 for regular right now here in the Florida Keys US.

91octane = $1.58/litre
96octane = $1.63/litre
diesel = $1.06/litre

and if your wanting to run your cor on something cheaper, then get yourself o good diesel, like a landrover or something, and mix avgas(120 octane petrol) with vegetable oil(after youve filtered used shit, to buy it new is more than regular diesel)

I pay about 98p per litre of diesel. This costs about £38 for a full tank. Which gives about 500 economical miles.

Rip off Britain!

I pay about 98p per litre of diesel. This costs about £38 for a full tank. Which gives about 500 economical miles.

Rip off Britain!

I'll second that!!!!!!!