Right now, we’re paying anywhere from 70 cents to a dollar more per gallon than this time a year ago.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Energy analysts say a glut of
oil means gas prices probably
won’t spike too much this year.
Rebecca Williams has more:
Transcript
Energy analysts say a glut of
oil means gas prices probably
won’t spike too much this year.
Rebecca Williams has more:
We’re paying anywhere from 70 cents to a dollar more per gallon than this time a year ago. The good news is, we’re not likely to see four dollar-a-gallon gas anytime soon.
“We’re not in a world with runaway oil prices.”
That’s Ruchir Kadakia. He’s a global oil market expert with IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. He says weak global demand is keeping oil prices in check for now. At the same time, supply is relatively high. He predicts oil won’t average much higher than 80 dollars a barrel for the next year or so.
“And so what that really means for the gasoline point is through probably 2011, we shouldn’t expect to see gasoline prices much above three dollars unless it’s for a short period of time maybe in the summertime for a few months.”
Kadakia says oil speculators can drive prices higher or lower in the short term. But he doesn’t think we’ll see any major price spikes over the long term.
This is a mock-up of what the proposed label would look like (Photo courtesy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)
Back in 2007, Congress told the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to come up with
new fuel efficiency labels on tires.
Mark Brush reports on when we might
see those labels in tire shops:
Transcript
Back in 2007, Congress told the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to come up with
new fuel efficiency labels on tires.
Mark Brush reports on when we might
see those labels in tire shops:
It’s been 2 years, and the government is still working out how to get this labeling program going.
Right now, if you walk into a tire shop, it’s hard to compare tires on how fuel efficient they are. There’s no official standard yet.
But that should change soon. The new tire labeling program is expected to roll it out in the next few months.
Dan Zielinski is a spokesman for the Rubber Manufacturers Association. He says they support a labeling law because it’ll help competition.
It could give tire makers something to brag about.
“’It will be an incentive to say ‘my tire is better because,’ or, ‘my range of tires here are better because.’ It offers the consumers better performance on certain criteria. And I think that will drive the market even before the consumer demand does.”
A more fuel efficient tire will only get you a couple of miles per gallon more. But, put those tires on the 200 million cars and trucks driving the roads these days, and that could add up.
The price of a barrel of oil has jumped
up from $45 to nearly $70 in just
three months. And gas prices have been
creeping up too. Rebecca Williams reports
these prices are out of sync with the usual
rules of supply and demand:
Transcript
The price of a barrel of oil has jumped
up from $45 to nearly $70 in just
three months. And gas prices have been
creeping up too. Rebecca Williams reports
these prices are out of sync with the usual
rules of supply and demand:
Right now there’s a huge glut of supply of oil – and at the same time, weak global demand for it.
Ruchir Kadakia is a global oil market expert. He’s with Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
He says speculators are driving oil prices up.
“People believe that with positive economic growth in the future there will be greater demand for oil. So they start to buy up oil in anticipation of that demand recovery.”
So these speculators are making money while most of the economy is in a slump.
But Kadakia thinks the realities of supply and demand will eventually catch up and drag oil prices back down.
“The pain we’re feeling at the pump today is probably going to be the worst we feel all this summer.”
He thinks gas prices might actually get back below two dollars a gallon.
You get more out of your tank of gas if it is purchased in a cold location versus a warm one (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)
People who buy gasoline in cold
places get more bang for their buck than
people buying gas in warm places. Kyle
Norris explains:
Transcript
People who buy gasoline in cold
places get more bang for their buck than
people buying gas in warm places. Kyle
Norris explains:
Let’s say my friend Ana buys 10 gallons of gasoline in a cold place like the
Canadian tundra. And I buy 10 gallons of gas in the warm state of Florida.
My friend Ana will be able to drive further than I will with those 10 gallons.
That’s because gas expands at warm temperatures. But its energy content
does not.
There’s a gizmo gas stations can put on individual pumps that adjusts for
temperature differences. But each one costs a couple thousand bucks a pop.
Dave Maurer is with the US Government Accountability Office.
“There actually have not been a lot of studies done on the benefits and costs of installing this
equipment. Really what we found is that it’s not really known.”
Right now different states do different things. California has just started a
major study on this topic. But without much research, Maurer said it’s tough
for policy makers to make decisions.
This E85 pump is one of two publicly
available in the city of Chicago - a
city of nearly three million people
and dozens of dealerships that sell E-85
compatible cars. The federal government
provided incentives to manufacture E85-
compatible vehicles, but the fuel
infrastructure hasn't kept up. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
If you’ve kicked the tires around
a new car lot recently, your dealer may
have told you about “flex fuel” cars. These
Flex Fuel Vehicles run on gas or they can
burn “E85” – a mix of ethanol and gasoline.
Congress promoted Flex Fuel Vehicles to cut
oil imports, but Shawn Allee reports
on why it really hasn’t helped:
Transcript
If you’ve kicked the tires around
a new car lot recently, your dealer may
have told you about “flex fuel” cars. These
Flex Fuel Vehicles run on gas or they can
burn “E85” – a mix of ethanol and gasoline.
Congress promoted Flex Fuel Vehicles to cut
oil imports, but Shawn Allee reports
on why it really hasn’t helped:
I’m in my car across the street from a gas station. It’s raining right now. Keeping my
distance.
I’ve been watching a pump that dispenses that E85 blend – it’s the stuff with 85% ethanol.
Anyway, this is a very lonely gas pump. I’ve been here for something like an hour and
half and no one’s filled up on E85.
So, I’m gonna head in and talk to a manager to see whether this is normal.
(sound of bell)
Allee: “What’s your name sir?”
McLemen: “Greg McLemen.”
Allee: “How often do you see people fill up on E85?”
McLemen: “It depends on the location. Mostly people just don’t know what it is. They
see a little pump over there that says E85. A lot of vehicles take it, and they don’t even
know it.”
McLemen pulls out a flier that shows which vehicles can use E85.
He says lots of these models pull in, but often pass up his E85 pump.
(sound of crinkling)
McLemen: “You can see most of them are General Motors.”
Allee: “A lot of General Motors – Tahoe, Avalanche, Uplanders.”
McLemen: “We always recommend they go online or check the owner’s manual.”
But there’s something most Flex-Fuel owners manuals don’t tell you.
Nationwide, only about 1% of stations have an E85 pump.
E85 is supposed to cut gasoline use.
So it begs the questions: If there’s not much E85 around, why can so many Flex Fuel cars
use it?
“Currently, auto companies receive a fuel economy credit for producing a flex-fuel
vehicle.”
Environmentalist Roland Hwang tracks car policy for the Natural Resources Defense
Council.
He says the Flex Fuel incentives infuriate him – because they’ve made us waste gasoline,
not save it.
“Just very roughly speaking, like a twenty per mile gallon car might be treated like a
forty mile per gallon, almost like a hybrid-level of efficiency, under these fuel economy
credits. Thereby allowing the auto companies actually to build a less-efficient vehicle
fleet than they would have had to build.”
You don’t have to take Hwang’s word for it – energy analysts in the government agree the
incentives have wasted gasoline.
But some of these analysts say there is a bright side to the Flex Fuel vehicle incentives.
One is Paul Leiby of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Leiby: “The important side of effect Flexible Fuel incentives is that we actually can begin
to achieve energy security with the enhanced capability to use alternative fuels even if
we’re not yet using them.”
Allee: “You mean the flex fuel vehicle program wastes some gas, but having flex fuel
vehicles around is like an insurance policy, for an oil shock or something?”
Leiby: “That’s exactly right. If we have to do something very fast, within one to three
years, we already have some vehicles on the road, that can quickly switch to ethanol.”
Leiby says Congress really believed this “insurance policy” idea, so it let Flex Fuel
vehicle incentives for automakers go on for more than a decade – even while we were
just spinning our wheels when it came to actually saving gas.
But now, the game could be changing.
Congress is phasing out Flex Fuel credits for the car makers.
And, there’s talk about making all cars flex fuel.
It’s a move Detroit doesn’t want to make. Because then they’ll have to actually have to
meet the government’s requirements of a more fuel efficient fleet.
The seven million or so Flex Fuel Vehicles
are just a small portion of the 200-million
or so vehicles in the American fleet, but
there could many, more in the future.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
For most drivers, filling up at the
pump’s a pretty easy operation – you drive
up, you fill up, and you drive out. But people
who have Flex Fuel Vehicles have another choice.
They can fill up on gas or E-85, that 85 percent
ethanol blend – if they find the right station.
Shawn Allee reports a lot more of us
could have to make that same choice in the future:
Transcript
For most drivers, filling up at the
pump’s a pretty easy operation – you drive
up, you fill up, and you drive out. But people
who have Flex Fuel Vehicles have another choice.
They can fill up on gas or E-85, that 85 percent
ethanol blend – if they find the right station.
Shawn Allee reports a lot more of us
could have to make that same choice in the future:
I’m at a car lot in my home town. I’m not actually in the car market, but I am
curious what these E85 compatible Flex Fuel vehicles look like. I don’t own one
myself.
Anyway, I’m here with Edgar Moreno. He sells cars on this lot. He’s gonna show
me one of these vehicles here.
Allee: “Edgar, what can you show me?”
Moreno: “The Chevy Impala.”
Allee: “I actually don’t see anything that would tell me it’s a Flex-fuel vehicle.”
Moreno: “Usually it says on the gas cap whether you can use E85 or not.”
(sound of twist)
Allee: “It’s bright yellow. It says E85. In fact it says E85-slash-gasoline. What does
that mean?”
Moreno: “You can fill it with either, or.”
Allee: “How many stations are there available where I could fill this Impala up with
E85?”
Moreno: “I think there’s one in the area, but you have to drive quite a bit to get
there.”
Allee: “So, it’s one of those situations where, if I take this Impala off the lot, I could
still use it at a regular gas station, but I might have to search around for an E85
station?”
Moreno: “Yes, you do. Yep.”
Congress and both presidential candidates are considering making every car a Flex
Fuel Vehicle.
Detroit has spent a lot of money promoting E85 vehicles, and you might think they’d
be in favor of this.
Well, I called Ford Motor Company about this and found out that’s not the case.
“You could mandate every vehicle on the road to be a flex fuel vehicle. It would be a
great cost to our industry.”
Curt Magleby is Ford’s point-man on ethanol regulations.
He says if Congress gets its way there’d be more Flex Fuel Vehicles, but not necessarily
more E85 pumps.
“So you can mandate the vehicle side, but unless there’s a real focus on distribution,
it’s wasted money – we’d be putting dollars on the hoods of our vehicles for no
reason.”
So, Ford and the other car makers could make less profit on Flex Fuel Vehicles if there’s
a mandate.
At one time, they got government incentives to build Flex Fuel Vehicles, but those will
phase out.
So there’d be no benefit for the automakers.
And there’s another twist in the E-85 story.
The fuel industry is pushing to distribute ethanol in a way that might not require flex fuel
cars at all.
This is a little technical, but most gas already has 10% ethanol in it.
The fuel industry wants to sell 20% or even 30% ethanol blends because it saves oil
companies money. The government subsidized ethanol is cheaper than refining oil for
gasoline.
Ford and other car-makers are fighting this.
Magleby says burning E-20 or E-30 blends would be a disaster for existing cars.
“Ethanol is corrosive and it burns hotter, so you have to have a different fuel tank.
You have to have stainless steel fuel lines. You have to have hardened valves in your
engine.”
Car companies say burning 20% or 30% ethanol blends could hurt existing cars.
Scientists are checking whether that’s the case.
In the meantime, Congress is deciding exactly how it will promote ethanol.
It could mandate all cars be E85 Flex Fuel vehicles or it could promote lower-level
ethanol blends in gasoline.
Either way, over the next few years, we’re going to see big changes in our cars or our gas
pumps.
Since gas prices have dropped, some buyers are showing more interest in big vehicles. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
When gas prices went up, car
companies cut their production plans for
making big vehicles, and made new plans
for more fuel efficient cars. The question
now is, with gas prices falling, will those
plans change again? As Dustin Dwyer
reports, the experts say probably not:
Transcript
When gas prices went up, car
companies cut their production plans for
making big vehicles, and made new plans
for more fuel efficient cars. The question
now is, with gas prices falling, will those
plans change again? As Dustin Dwyer
reports, the experts say probably not:
It’s not as easy to make money on a small car as it is on an SUV.
Small cars are cheaper, and they have lower profit margins. But as gas prices went up earlier this year, auto
executives insisted they’d find a way to make money on small vehicles.
Since gas prices have dropped though, some buyers are showing more interest in big vehicles.
Michael Robinet tracks the auto industry for the firm CSM Worldwide. He says the long term trend still
points to smaller vehicles.
“There may be a ratcheting down by some consumers in terms of the size of vehicles that they’re looking
for, irrespective of where fuel prices go in the future.”
Robinet says the bad economy is forcing many people to downsize. And the federal government has new
rules that mandate cleaner cars, so Robinet says getting smaller will be the big trend for years to come.
Tire experts say that your tire pressure does, in fact, effect your gas mileage (Photo by Karen Kelly)
Earlier this year John McCain
and Barack Obama traded jabs over how
important tire pressure was in saving
gas. Lester Graham reports the experts
say it does make a difference:
Transcript
Earlier this year John McCain
and Barack Obama traded jabs over how
important tire pressure was in saving
gas. Lester Graham reports the experts
say it does make a difference:
Tim Bent is the Environmental Affairs Director at Firestone Tires. He says you ought to
check your tire pressure.
“Many people don’t maintain their tires well enough. They don’t check their tire
pressure frequently enough. And that does result, not only in lower gas mileage, but
premature tire wear which could be a safety issue as well.”
Bent says you should check tire pressure once a month. How much of a difference can
it make?
“A couple p.s.i could result in a few percentage points in fuel mileage.”
And at today’s prices, that can add up at the pump.
A diagram of the ballast-free ship (Photo courtesy of Professor Michael Parsons)
The stern of the model showing the two discharge locations on the ship. It was tested last summer. (Photo courtesy of Professor Michael Parsons)
Cargo ships move sea life around the world.
Moving aquatic life from one port to another can cause
environmental havoc. Lester Graham reports there’s a
new idea that could nearly eliminate the problem of
transporting sea life to foreign ports:
Transcript
Cargo ships move sea life around the world.
Moving aquatic life from one port to another can cause
environmental havoc. Lester Graham reports there’s a
new idea that could nearly eliminate the problem of
transporting sea life to foreign ports:
There is an invasion of every major port on the globe.
“Today, the world’s shores are under attack. Armies of aliens are secretly invading our coasts.”
If this video, Invaders from the Sea, from the International Maritime
Organization sounds a little over-dramatic, it’s really not. Invaders from far-flung
corners of the world are brought in by commerce. In their travels, cargo ships pick up the
hitchhikers.
Those hitchhikers can be fish, mussels – aquatic bugs of all kinds. They can become
pests. Out-compete native species for food and space. They can destroy the
native ecosystems and often damage the economic well-being of people.
Here’s how it happens. Ocean-going cargo ships dock at a foreign port. They pump in
water for ballast to keep the ship stable. They also pump in some of the living things in
the water. When they arrive at the destination port, they can pump out that water and
the critters that were sucked up with it.
In the US, ports from Chesapeake Bay to San Francisco have been invaded. But,
the Great Lakes have been hit especially hard by invasive species.
Michael Parsons is a professor of naval architecture at the University of Michigan. He
says when foreign ships were able to come in from the Atlantic and travel as far as
inland as Duluth, Minnesota; they brought a lot of invaders with them.
“With the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the ‘50’s, that led to increased
introduction of non-indigenous species such as the zebra mussel, and the round goby, and
the ruffe, and the various smaller creatures that have been brought in to the Great Lakes.”
Those creatures have damaged the ecosystem of the Great Lakes. And they’ve cost the economy.
By one Environmental Protection Agency estimate about five-billion dollars a year.
Parsons and his colleagues have been working to design a ship that has no need for
ballast. In the lab, a scale model has been tested in a long pool. Instead of pumping
water in and out of the ballasts, the water would flow through big
tubes that run the length of the ship.
“And so, that’ll create a slow flow through these trunks so that they’re always swept
clean of foreign water.”
“A ship like that is just what we need in the Great Lakes.”
Andy Buchsbaum runs the Great Lakes office of the environmental group, the National
Wildlife Federation.
“If you eliminate the need for ballast water altogether, then you’re eliminating the vast
majority of invasive species introductions that come in through the discharge of ballast.”
The ballast-free ship design is creating some excitement. Even the shipping industry is
paying attention because the ship also is more fuel efficient.
If someone decides to actually build the ballast-free cargo ship, it’ll be a while before
the first one is on the high seas.
Allegra Cangelosi has been working on the ballast and invasive species problem for
close to a decade. She’s a policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute.
“I think it’s a wonderful development. I don’t think there’s going to be any one answer
for all ships plying all waters throughout the globe. However, the more good answers
that are out there to choose from, the better for the environment.”
Some of those choices are filtering ballast water or killing organisms in the ballast with
chemicals. Those systems are expensive. And since fuel isn’t getting any cheaper, that
might make a more fuel-efficient ballast-free ship attractive.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Map of the Great Lakes, the basin, and the 8 connecting states. (Photo courtesy of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA)
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Compact is an
agreement to stop shipping water out of the Great Lakes
basin. But all eight Great Lakes states and Congress
must approve it first. Lester Graham talked with Peter
Annin, the author of the book “The Great Lakes Water
Wars.” Annin says some of the states have been reluctant
to approve the treaty because Michigan has an image of saying
‘no’ to water requests from other states while putting
almost no water restrictions on its own towns and businesses:
Transcript
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Compact is an
agreement to stop shipping water out of the Great Lakes
basin. But all eight Great Lakes states and Congress
must approve it first. Lester Graham talked with Peter
Annin, the author of the book “The Great Lakes Water
Wars.” Annin says some of the states have been reluctant
to approve the treaty because Michigan has an image of saying
‘no’ to water requests from other states while putting
almost no water restrictions on its own towns and businesses:
Peter Annin: “Michigan has been a laggard in monitoring and regulating its own domestic water
use. And so it’s seen by some other states as being somewhat hypocritical in the water debate.
For example, Minnesota, which is the most progressive domestically, if you’re going to withdraw
water from the Great Lakes at 10,000 gallons a day or more, you have to get a permit. In the state
of Michigan you can go up to 5 million gallons of water withdrawn from Lake Michigan per day
before you have to get a permit. 10,000 gallons in Minnesota, 5 million gallons in Michigan, and
this is what is causing tension between Michigan and some of the other Great Lakes states.”
Lester Graham: “Lets assume that all 8 Great Lakes states do pass this within the next year or
two, Congress then has to pass it – and many of the members of Congress are in those thirsty
Southwestern states. What happens then?”
Annin: “Yeah, that’s a really good point. We have to remember that the compact is just a piece of
paper until it passes all 8 Great Lakes legislatures and then is adopted by Congress. And there
are a lot of concerns among the general public, given that we have these dry-land states that have
a lot of problems with water perhaps opposing the Great Lakes compact. I’m not so certain that
that’s going to be an issue, because those states also have a lot federal water projects that come
up for renewal all the time that require the Great Lakes Congressmen to sign off on. And I’m not
sure they’re in a position, given how precious and important water is for them to survive on a daily
basis down there, that they’re really that interested in getting into a water fight with the Senators
and Congressmen in the Great Lakes basin. But, we’ll see.”
Graham: “I’ve looked at different models for getting Great Lakes water down to the Southwest,
and economically, they just don’t seem feasible. It would be incredibly expensive to try to get
Great Lakes water to the Southwest states, yet, State Legislators say again and again ‘oh no,
they have a plan, they know how it will happen.’ And as water becomes more valuable, they could
make it happen. How likely is it that there would be a canal or pipe and pumping stations built to
divert Great Lakes water, if this compact doesn’t pass?”
Annin: “It looks highly unlikely today, for the reasons that you just mentioned. It takes an
extraordinary amount of money to send water uphill, which is what would be to the West, and we’d
certainly have to cross mountain ranges if you’re even going to send it a shorter distance, to the
Southeast. To the point where it would be cheaper for many of these places to, even though it’s
expensive, to desalinate water from the ocean and then send it to inland places. But, you know, a
lot of water experts in the United States say ‘never say never’, because the value of fresh, potable
water is probably going to skyrocket in this century. We’re leaving the century of oil; we’re entering
the century of water. But, for right now, you’re absolutely right, it is extraordinary cost-prohibitive.
But let me say one other footnote here, it’s hard to find a federal water project in this country that
actually made economic sense.”
Right now, we’re paying anywhere from 70 cents to a dollar more per gallon than this time a year ago. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
