Topic: Fuel prices hitting an eight year high - page 13. (Read 3974 times)

Hope I'll soon get a confirmation concerning the real reason for the price increase. That should help me determine what to advice to help reduce price. I just hope people do elect leaders who could quickly solve problems like that without creating more problems. Any mistake contributes to National/World problems

Oil companies will increase fuel prices again for the sixth-straight week. The price adjustments reflect movements in the international oil market.
Source: https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2021/10/4/Big-time-fuel-price-hike-Oct.-5-.html

Currently, we are also experiencing price surges and hikes here in our country. The average unleaded here will cost $1.17 per liter while the diesel was roughly $0.88 dollars, almost every week the prices will go up as well as the electricity because we cannot depend on the hydro power plants and windmills here to supply our daily household electricity needs and forcing individuals to pay more for the pump while having less for their daily needs.

That's the highest this year, and I think I might have to give up my traditional bike for a while and start using my bike only for work. Here, electric cars are not an unpleasant thing when we can all protect the environment, now there are a lot of fuel sources in countries around the world that are running out and gradually countries Families are replacing traditional materials that pollute the environment with vehicles that use only electricity. I read the news in a country in the world in the Netherlands they encourage people to use bicycles and this is where most people like to ride bicycles.

Exactly my point, your prayers of not witnessing such an event for myself are about 40 years too late


People don't die from oncology, just like they don't die from stomatology, if you plan on using terms that you're not familiar with first make sure what they mean.


I was really getting concerned that the socialist side of your wasn't coming out so I was thinking something was off.
So your solution is not providing bread to everyone but make sure nobody has cake.
As usual, the immediate concern is not the ones that have nothing but the ones that have too much, first let's get rid of the kulaks, and then let's see if we can solve poverty. Oh wait, since we're all not poor as hell, it means nobody is poor we're equal! Problem solved!
How about rather than focusing on the number of pairs I have a focus on the number of pairs everyone could have without pointing a gun at somebody else?


Which on top of that happened because of a 14 meters tall wave that got over the sea wall after the earthquake.
Now, when was the last major 7 Richter scale earthquake and 15-meter tsunami in France, Germany, Poland or....Switzerland?

But isn't stupidity wonderful?
European gas price surge prompts switch to coal
I wonder why they don't rely on solar...oh wait, it's nearly winter in most of Europe and we get about 3-4 hours of peak sun here.
Renewable energy's share of German power usage falls on lower wind output

I agree that people also die from pollution. And he dies a lot, and regularly. But this does not mean nuclear energy, because of this it has become safe. About Japan and the Fukushima tragedy. Perhaps 1 person DIED. But perhaps you have no idea how insidious nuclear energy is. You can not die today or tomorrow, but in 10 years, when a person will be in the very dawn of strength, and suddenly CANCER. And even if you move to another region / country where everything is environmentally friendly. Either his children will be identified, or his father, being a grandfather, will be forced to nurse the grandchildren of freaks ...
It's foolish to choose the best of two deaths, really ...
It seems to me that it is worth investing money not in the struggle of one type of killing people over another, but in really alternative, safer solutions.

I would rather side with stompix here. The Chernobyl tragedy happened because of the mismanagement from the Soviet authorities. The only noticeable nuclear accident that has occurred in the last three decades is Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. Even in this case, according to the government study, so far just one death has occurred from radiation exposure. Now compare this to the millions who die every year from atmospheric pollution, that has been attributed to the thermal power plants.

It is mind blowing that something could be as volatile as that. We are talking about negative to highest ever in 8 years. I do trading in crypto and I do not think that I have seen something as volatile as oil and that says something. If a person from crypto world tell you that you are way volatile then there is a good chance that you are doing something wrong, it is obvious that there is a good chance you are not going to be making too much sense in the long term.

I get that oil is something we started to use a whole lot all of a sudden which caused the spike, there were nobody using it neither on cars nor on airplanes or anything else really and now they are using it all at the same time which increased the usage but I still do not think that it should be worth this much at this point.

To be honest, I did not understand at all what does the east of Ukraine have to do with it The radioactive slick covered the northern part of Ukraine, then went to Belarus and further to Europe. The east of Ukraine did not suffer from the consequences of this accident!





The rest is all very touching ... In winter, if you look at the statistics, that with cheap fuel, that with expensive fuel, there is always more mortality. Yes, and guess what? Do not believe it - from hypothermia. Amazing fact!
I am sure that a massive decrease in consumption, with a decrease in temperature in houses and apartments to 20 degrees, will avoid problems and increased fuel consumption.

If you are so humane - yes to hell with that, let's feed everyone? Well, really - why do you need more than 1 pair of sneakers in your life? 2-3 T-shirts are also enough - just wash them carefully, in cold water of course, environmentally friendly - with sand or ash But the money earned - send the money to the hungry people around the world to buy food, well, so that they also buy clothes for them, also at your expense ?
Or is such humanity not interesting? Or have I changed the emphasis incorrectly?
I will return to the Chernobyl tragedy - you can feed the hungry, warm the freezing, and hundreds of thousands in Ukraine alone who are sick and dying from oncology, as the consequences of this catastrophe, you will not be able to fix it. This is a sentence. Sick from children to old people. No options. No way out. Without the slightest chance ...

But that is not a solution for all countries either. Unfortunately. I can give you a good example from Germany, which already decided in 2011 to phase out nuclear and coal energy and is now having great problems with the implementation. Among other things, billions have been invested in wind power plants in recent years. In the first half of 2021, however, the wind power could produce less energy (because of the weather) than the last years and than planned. Therefore, the missing electricity had to be compensated with gas-fired power plants. This led to the fact that shortly before winter the gas reserves are significantly lower than usual, and the energy companies have to buy gas at very expensive prices, which makes the prices explode at the moment.

It's about one-quarter of the total energy consumed, but overall at the end of the bill, it doesn't matter because if VW for example pays also a greentax the cost will be in the finished product. If a restaurant pays 10% more on electricity that cost will be seen in the menu. It's not that somehow that money paid by companies or businesses will come out of some hidden pocket, at the end of the line it will still be reflected in ours, even if the company takes it out of their profits that will impact on the money shareholders get so it will still be there.

But even if we divide that by 4 to 9 billion, it still comes at 180E per household per year, still you're paying in subsidies 50% of what the bill would look like in a normal country. And it's not a matter of purchasing power either as one could claim, why is the price per kwh in the Netlends half of that in Germany?


Because the second won't happen unless we shut down the economy and I don't see an economic crisis happening because of low gas prices, because of high one...well it's here. Nor would we see people angry and cursing that they've filled their tank with 10$



Let's start counting the poeple who will die of cold in their homes because they can't pay for heating this winter, then let's see if somebody gives a fuck if the planet is destroyed 300 years from now when he is freezing to death with the gas and power cut because he couldn't pay for them.
Go on and tell those poeple they should pay all their money to survive the cold in order to save the planet.

Let's see if you would dare! Imagine having your kid freezing and crying he is cold next to you and listening to some moron on tv about how we need to put more carbon taxes or we will experience heatwaves after heatwaves.

It's crazy to see that near the start of Covid the oil price actually went negative for a little while - there was so much output backed up with no one using it and all storage capacity gone, that it oil producers were essentially paying you (or people with spare capacity) to take delivery. Now over a year later we are back at record highs. Anyone with sense last year should have been buying oil company shares because they were heavily depressed due to this situation and have since rebounded substantially. For the average consumer though, like so many things right now, the supply chains have been screwed up substantially and it might take many years to return to the normal we had before.

I suppose you mean the renewable sources of energy are expensive if compared to their efficiency, right?

And that is actually true, because there isn't incentive from the government to make people adopt it. There isn't any governmental propaganda to educate people regards this matter. Moreover, most equipments to set the solar system up come from another countries (they are imported), making them very expensive. The government shouldn't charge any taxes on this, because it's something we don't have access in our country and could be even considered basic need goods. As it couldn't become worse, congressmen are already passing a law to create a tax over solar energy production, so people who supply their homes with renewable energy will have to keep paying taxes to the government anyway.

The same could be said about the electrical cars which are still scarce and very expensive if compared to the traditional alcohool or gasoline cars.

However, despite all difficulties and sabotages it may still worth the investment on long run. To reach to a conclusion it's needed to get a quote of how much the solar system costs to supply your house, and next you calculate if a loan is a good idea. Sometimes the loan monthly parcel is the same amount of money you pay to your energy provider right now.

Don't you think that at least a part of the crude oil price rise resulted from inflation? I tried to analyze, but couldn't find any large difference between supply and demand for crude oil in the last 2-3 years. So I am suspecting that the current spike has more to do with the unlimited printing of banknotes in the name of COVID stimulus. Don't forget the fact that the M1 monetary supply of the US Dollar went up by 200%+ in the last two years. Trillions have been created out of thin air, and it is natural to have an impact on the market because of this.

Crude oil barrel's price is steadily increasing, the average price for 95 unleaded, in my area is now €1.80, while for regular diesel is €1.50. Fuelling up your car was always an expensive procedure, but now it's a complete nightmare, in my case I'll need €70-€80 to fill up my tank from empty. On top of that, electricity costs are also spiking, which is quite logical, if you consider that most of our energy is generated by burning fossil fuels.

The question now is, how can the average consumer keep up with the increasing living costs? Fuel, electricity, products have seen increases in price, salaries on the other hand have not. Thus, the total available income is vastly shrinking.

You have to remember that these are non-renewable resources. Oil is generally hard to find in the first place, and very scarce as well. Not to mention the detriments that it causes in the environment in the form of pollution. PLus as more and more countries get industrialized, the need for electricity and gasoline increases which then pumps the demand of oil and similar products, with this in mind, we have to consider that if we aren't going to change our ways, the vision of a luscious future will be under the expense that oil prices increases, and that our environment is affected. Thing about these types of resources is they are severely downplayed by big oil companies as inefficient sources of energy compared to oil and coal, which then causes manufacturers and even households to not choose these greener alternatives when in reality they are very efficient and also nature-friendly. Plus the startup price also affects the consumer's opinion over these healthier alternatives that's why among the current sources of energy that we use, the most environmentally-friendly option is nuclear energy.

This source has nuclear above all forms of green renewable sources.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Looking only at mortality though doesn't take into account the environmental drawbacks of nuclear though.  To your point, nuclear offers far more energy for far less deaths compared to fossil fuels, but that doesn't refute my point from my last post that nuclear creates hazardous materials that need to be safely secured and stored because of how dangerous it is.

Such protests may have a short term impact, but it won't block the inevitable. If something is ineffective compared to something else, then no matter how much the supporters protest, it can't be held afloat for too long. In the end, it is up to the consumers to decide whether he or she want to use it or not. The only option left here is to improve the efficacy or make it more affordable. Else, the alternative will gain acceptance. Now you can't force the people to use a commodity which is more expensive and unaffordable compared to the alternative.

It reminds me candle sellers were against electricity because they would lose their jobs if the world adopted a better technology, what inevitably happened anyway and these people had to find alternative ways to work for a living. That is the normal as things are constantly evolving and something that is a necessity now won't be necessary anymore when we find a more efficient method to fulfill that same objective.
What shouldn't happen is to stop evolving because some people can't adapt themselves to changes in life.

People who act corporately are blind by their own selfish that they can't see the benefits they could also have by adopting green sources of energy.

The problem is that there are people defending against green energy for ... no reason at all. Those are the problems, we are having that type of problem that people who will not make any profit at all from this end up defending. I understand if you are working in oil world then you would defend it and that would be something very important for you since if you lose then you are losing your job as well.

However when we say that the world is burning, and we are ALREADY too late and the world is keep getting burned, then we get people saying things like "everything seems fine, you keep saying it will get worse and nothing gets worse" for some reason. Like what? How the hell you are not seeing that during summers we get nations on fire everywhere around the world. THAT is the result of us not going green earlier.

We need to go to green or not only we will be doing worse, but we will literally not have any way to stay alive neither. It is really a shame honestly and I am having a bit of a problem to understand how people could defend against green energy when there is nothing that they would profit from neither.

The problem that arose in Chernobyl, and subsequently led to a global tragedy, was not backwardness or low security. At that time, the USSR was a more or less adequate supplier of solutions in the nuclear power industry. The problem was quite different. The problem was the "security" system, reduced to idiocy. The essence of what happened was the transition of the RBMK-1000 reactor to an abnormal mode. And it turned out that the staff had no information on what to do in such a (very specific) situation. At the same time, the key problem was that the developers KNEW about this behavior, this reactor model. Moreover, this "behavior" of the reactor was described, the reasons were indicated, as well as ways of stabilization. BUT ! This part of the project documentation was classified as "secret", and, accordingly, was not used to train the personnel of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant ... This idiocy has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, and systemic diseases of millions.