According to AAA, the national average for a gallon of gasoline is now $3.75. However, you can still find gas in the Chicago area more than $4 a gallon, as this Marathon station in Glenview lets people know.The photograph was taken yesterday morning. There are some filling stations with gasoline just under $4.
UPDATE 11:00PM CDT: I drove past the same station this afternoon, regular gas is at $3.99.
Technorati tags:
economy 
business 
energy 
gasoline 
Glenview
Even Will County, wth its lower taxes is pricing at over $4. per gallon. You have to go all the way to southwestern Joliet (near the I-80 and I-55 interchange) to get under $3.90
ReplyDeleteThat is why we must drill in 8 years to tap into that teensy li'l 3% of world reserves while paying little attention to practical alternate energy sources!!! Woot!
ReplyDelete;)
Like ethanol? A quarter of our corn crop is used to replace 4 percent of our oil usage.
ReplyDeleteWind power--which I favor, especially Cape Wind off of Hyannis Port--is still at best a supplement to our energy needs.
Solar? Still a pipe dream.
Nuclear fusion? Same.
Nuclear? A good option.
Coal? More
Kennebunkport has wind too. Why didn't the Bush family put any windmills up off the shore of their compound?
ReplyDeleteAnd how big is your backyard? We'll need somewhere to bury all that spent nuclear waste since we already have enough to fill Yucca Mountain (if it's ever even opened).
Ah, coal. How long do you think we humans can go on dumping garbage into the air we breathe? You run marathons. I'm sure you love running when pollution factors are high, right?
....You keep self-fulfilling that fantasy of yours that solar, etc. are "pipe dreams". Every word Republicans utter advocating more-of-the-same (drilldrilldrill) is another word wasted while we could be improving proven technologies like solar. Indeed, the MIT study on artificial photosynthesis is predicted to take about a decade to perfect (about as long as drilling for that 3% of total reserves you want to do).
The only difference is the sun isn't scheduled to run out for several billion years while we're clearly running out of oil right now (it's getting harder and harder to find the stuff since almost all the easy-to-reach oil deposits are just about sucked dry).
America is a nation of inventors and perfecters... shouldn't we be at the leading edge of future energy platforms rather than also-rans?
We should be, Rob. Indeed.
ReplyDeleteAnd I was so happy, as a young boy, after the OPEC oil embargo, and a recession that Jimmy Carter took the initiative to get alternative fuel programs going so that 30 some odd years down the road, we wouldn't have to worry about oil.
Add to that, all of the good work Bill Clinton did to get us off of oil and onto solar.
Oh.
Wait.
All of the energy problems in the country are directly the fault of republicans.
Thanks for clearing that up, champ.
By the way - I noticed that no one mentioned fuel cells.
Please to note that the real perfecters in the world, the Japanese (via Honda), are trial testing fuel cell vehicles in California.
Yo, If we should "indeed" be following those plans why won't the GOP actually do that? They talk a good talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk with a comprehensive policy they balk.
ReplyDeleteIf we continue on the path the GOP is advocating in their 60s style sit-in we will indeed continue to abdicate our nation's proud heritage as entrepreneurs to other countries like Japan (and Germany... and, if they get their act together, China, etc.), just as you say.
The Republicans' whine and cheesiness party has them concentrating on drilldrilldrill, never mind that what they want to drill for barely amounts to 3% of total world oil reserves (and that we can't get to it for the better part of a decade... and that oil execs admit they'll likely sell "our" oil off to Asia or Europe first anyway...).
But when a compromise comes up that includes opening up off-shore drilling and common sense investment in future energy plans, the conservatives go bonkers pooh-poohing it. Even our imitable host Mr. Ruberry jumped on that talking point to go sour on the Senate compromise a few days back.
So while all of our nation's energy problems may not be the fault of the Republicans specifically, they sure aren't helping any. (Nevermind the fact that if they actually cared about comprehensive energy policies they've had several years in which they controlled the White House, Congress, and even Supreme Court... yet here we are.)
And you seem to forget that one of the first things Reagan did was to literally dismantle Carter's energy policies (including trashing White House solar panels) and that Clinton concentrated on health care his first two years in office, which got him an obstructionist Republican Congress for the rest of his Administration.
But recognzing that having an oil guy for a president and Republicans whose campaign coffers glean with glistening oil money might have something to do with where our gas prices are today? Apparently that generates a bunch of junior high jokes in reply.
Phpt.
ReplyDeleteHack, hack, hack.
Seriously, champ. Take your head out of Arianna's ass for 5 minutes and get a breath of fresh air, wouldja'?
Let's look into recent history, shall we?
There is an energy plan in the House, right now.
Who's been blocking that vote, and why?
Hint: it ain't a republican.
Even if the bill is a piece of crap, wouldn't you think legislation such as that deserves at least an up or down vote, so that we could at least move past it?
I'm not saying Dems are entirely at fault. For me to state that one party were doing a majority of the damage would be stupid.
Y'know what I'm saying?
As for coffers dripping with the glistening of oil money, how much money has Obama taken in from big oil?
Hint: it's considerable higher than zero.
How 'bout ol' John Conyers in Detroit?
What's worse? Money from big oil, or the big three?
And don't give me that flabberjaw about high gas prices.
Return with me to recent history, 2006, a certain woman, from a certain party declared that she and her "most ethical Congress evah" would work to bring down gas prices.
Which direction did those prices go?
Hint: not down.
With the Dems controlling Congress, I didn't see any change, whatsoever, in policy adjustments.
Well, in fairness, I guess I did.
The Dems seem to be doing, now, what you complain that the GOP has done historically.
Quite honestly, the only thing "junior high" that I'm noticing are your debating skills.
Yo -
ReplyDeleteDrilling in 8 years in hopes of striking into 3% of total world reserves and selling any oil found to everyone but Americans is not "an energy plan" ... yet that's the House plan you advocate.
On the other hand, the Senate compromise that conservatives are railing against includes that and rational investment to improve existing, proven technology and develop new future energy platforms.
There's a reason Chevy's working on the electric-hybrid Volt and planning to board up Hummer plants... And you're clearly not grasping that reason.
Whatever.
ReplyDeleteYou're going after points I wasn't trying to make.
That happens when you shift your "points" after I poke holes in them.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever stop to think that the Dems actually have been working on comprehensive energy strategies but the obstructionist GOP (including the guy holding the veto stamp in his desk at 1600 Penn) are blocking those efforts?
Even now, as I noted, the hardliners on the red side are complaining about the Senate compromise even though that very compromise bill does everything they want to do.
Besides, how are long-term strategies supposed to change things after only 18months?
The current GOP drilldrilldrill plan won't change things for at least 8 years and won't be fully realized til around 2030, at which point the change in gas prices will be minimal (as everyone on all sides of the issue has admitted).
That happens when you shift your "points" after I poke holes in them.
ReplyDeleteI think you'd actually need to address the points before you can poke holes in them.
But, like I said - whatever.
Hey - have you ever considered that the solutions to getting onto alternative energies might take longer than 18 months to solve, and that we get much more from oil than gasoline alone?
If it weren't for oil, that computer you're using wouldn't exist.
You gonna find a way to replace ALL of the petroleum by-products in 18 months?
Or that there's more to gain by loosening our dependence on foreign oil?
It amazes me how people who claim that we're trading blood for oil are against drilling, domestically.
Yo asks: "Hey - have you ever considered that the solutions to getting onto alternative energies might take longer than 18 months to solve, and that we get much more from oil than gasoline alone?"
ReplyDeleteYes, that's why Reagan moving us away from future energy platforms in 1981 was not a good thing...
But it worked out well for the oil companies funding Republican campaigns.
Yo adds: "If it weren't for oil, that computer you're using wouldn't exist."
I understand that. And yes we'll need to eventually figure out alternative products for oil's other by-products. Did you know some formerly plastic paneling in cars is now being made with what used to be agricultural waste (the leftover husks and stalks from grains)? We need to continue that sort of innovation.
Clearly, as less oil is processed for fuel, more oil will be available for other products if needed.
And, as less petro-based gas fuels cars we can convert to electric or hybrid, etc. powered cars. One more time: Chevy is working on an electric hybrid they call the Volt. It's due in 2010 if they can get it right... That's about 18 months away -- maybe more, maybe less.
And 18-months is a heckuvalot sooner than 8 years which is how long it will take to even get out the first drops of oil in contention.
Yo rhetorically asks: "You gonna find a way to replace ALL of the petroleum by-products in 18 months?"
Who claimed that? You need to stop pulling talking points out of your big toe. ;)
What we do need to do is start working toward those innovations that are needed. Our American scientists are doing this now, but a boost in investment would obviously help.
Yo asks: "Or that there's more to gain by loosening our dependence on foreign oil?"
So you're in favor of keeping American oil in American hands? Currently, the Republicans do not favor this. They simply want the oil companies to have the ability to drill and then ship that oil they take from our shores and sell it off overseas.
If we're going to drill in America's coasts we ought to keep our oil here.
American oil for American cars.
Yo concludes: "It amazes me how people who claim that we're trading blood for oil are against drilling, domestically."
Because you're missing the point: We should be weening ourselves off of oil, whether foreign or domestic.
What is the point of simply delaying the inevitable when if we make smart investments in future energy platforms now we could be exporting American energy technology and making a mint as oil reserves dry up in coming decades and centuries.
Besides... the less petrochemicals we burn the less carbon pollution we produce and who doesn't like clean air? Though he has yet to admit it, I'm sure our host prefers clean air to dirty pollution as he runs his marathons.