Decius wrote:

The metro Atlanta region generally has about a 10-day supply of gasoline in inventory, said BP spokesman Michael Kumpf. The pipelines have been down for two days.
Alpharetta, Ga.-based Colonial Pipeline Co., cut off from its suppliers on the Gulf Coast, is now pumping gas from huge storage tanks, many in Powder Springs, Ga. Whether electric power can be restored to the pipeline pumps before supplies run out is "the great uncertainty ... that hangs over all of us," said Daniel Moenter, a spokesman for Marathon Ashland Petroleum, a major supplier of metro Atlanta's fuel.

Delta has already cancelled 300 flights due to fuel shortages.

Just filled up my tank - $2.94 a gallon. It was like $2.80 this morning.

The metro Atlanta region generally has about a 10-day supply of gasoline in inventory, said BP spokesman Michael Kumpf. The pipelines have been down for two days.
Alpharetta, Ga.-based Colonial Pipeline Co., cut off from its suppliers on the Gulf Coast, is now pumping gas from huge storage tanks, many in Powder Springs, Ga. Whether electric power can be restored to the pipeline pumps before supplies run out is "the great uncertainty ... that hangs over all of us," said Daniel Moenter, a spokesman for Marathon Ashland Petroleum, a major supplier of metro Atlanta's fuel.

I'm getting ready to drive to Atlanta from St. Louis tomorrow, since Dragon*Con is this weekend. I'll make sure to fill up my tank again, before I get into the city! If any locals have advice about the best place (last place?) to refill along the way in northern Georgia, please let me know.

Elonka

Elonka wrote:
I'm getting ready to drive to Atlanta from St. Louis tomorrow, since Dragon*Con is this weekend. I'll make sure to fill up my tank again, before I get into the city! If any locals have advice about the best place (last place?) to refill along the way in northern Georgia, please let me know.

I imagine the whole surrounding area is impacted. You are likely to see the effects as you come in from Chattanooga, and maybe there as well. Atlanta is particularly stressed because of the dense population and high fuel usage, but everyone in the area likely gets Gas the same way.

Elonka wrote:

The metro Atlanta region generally has about a 10-day supply of gasoline in inventory, said BP spokesman Michael Kumpf. The pipelines have been down for two days.
Alpharetta, Ga.-based Colonial Pipeline Co., cut off from its suppliers on the Gulf Coast, is now pumping gas from huge storage tanks, many in Powder Springs, Ga. Whether electric power can be restored to the pipeline pumps before supplies run out is "the great uncertainty ... that hangs over all of us," said Daniel Moenter, a spokesman for Marathon Ashland Petroleum, a major supplier of metro Atlanta's fuel.

I'm getting ready to drive to Atlanta from St. Louis tomorrow, since Dragon*Con is this weekend. I'll make sure to fill up my tank again, before I get into the city! If any locals have advice about the best place (last place?) to refill along the way in northern Georgia, please let me know.

Elonka

Yoooo..
http://www.atlantagasprices.com/

Decius wrote:

The metro Atlanta region generally has about a 10-day supply of gasoline in inventory, said BP spokesman Michael Kumpf. The pipelines have been down for two days.
Alpharetta, Ga.-based Colonial Pipeline Co., cut off from its suppliers on the Gulf Coast, is now pumping gas from huge storage tanks, many in Powder Springs, Ga. Whether electric power can be restored to the pipeline pumps before supplies run out is "the great uncertainty ... that hangs over all of us," said Daniel Moenter, a spokesman for Marathon Ashland Petroleum, a major supplier of metro Atlanta's fuel.

Delta has already cancelled 300 flights due to fuel shortages.

Apparently people are rushing gas stations all over town. The Gov. has issued a statement asking people to shop as usual, and avoid panic buying.

I'm down in Macon and I filled up for $2.99. I had to wait in line about 25 minutes. Every station I passed was completely packed with people. I heard of price gougers selling gas for $5.00/gallon.

Delta has already cancelled 300 flights due to fuel shortages.

I just went to wal-mart for a watch battery. When I went in, gas was 2.75. I came out - didn't even stand it line cause they didn't have my darn battery - and gas was 2.87.

10 minutes. 12 cents.

Jill just filled up my car. Gas is $3.29 in the city (17th @ Northside Dr).

Acidus wrote:

Delta has already cancelled 300 flights due to fuel shortages.

I just went to wal-mart for a watch battery. When I went in, gas was 2.75. I came out - didn't even stand it line cause they didn't have my darn battery - and gas was 2.87.

10 minutes. 12 cents.

Jill just filled up my car. Gas is $3.29 in the city (17th @ Northside Dr).

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

Tons of new refineries means dick when the two major pipelines for the south go down.

This isn't a manifestation of not having enough refineries. 40% of refineres are on the Gulf Coast for a reason: Thats where the oil tankers come. 40% of the refineries us horrible liberals "stopped" you from building would be damaged as well.

What I, and pretty much all the Liberals I know are against aren't new Nuke plants or refineries or wells. We are against the blind abandonment of reason. We are against the pityful view that if we simply would build more refineries and drill all of Alaska, somehow all our problems will somehow disappear. They won't. Our energy problems are much more severe and require a much larger solution and anything that doesn't try to address more than "oil" is a complete waste of time.

Funny how your misplaced anger isn't directed at the FUCKER in the White House whose energy policy did NOTHING of substance to lower our oil demands.

You blame "Communists." I blame every Presidential Administration from Carter on for failing to act. Did the Embargo's of the 1970s teach us nothing?

Supply has become a problem because we have done nothing to slow the demand.

Acidus wrote:

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

Tons of new refineries means dick when the two major pipelines for the south go down.

This isn't a manifestation of not having enough refineries. 40% of refineres are on the Gulf Coast for a reason: Thats where the oil tankers come. 40% of the refineries us horrible liberals "stopped" you from building would be damaged as well.

What I, and pretty much all the Liberals I know are against aren't new Nuke plants or refineries or wells. We are against the blind abandonment of reason. We are against the pityful view that if we simply would build more refineries and drill all of Alaska, somehow all our problems will somehow disappear. They won't.

Funny how you misplaced anger isn't directed at the FUCKER in the White House whose energy policy did NOTHING of substance to lower our oil demands.

Supply has become a problem because we have done nothing to slow the demand.

You'll thank us when in 30 years Alaska is the largest remaining oil field.

I don't want freaking oil. I want NUCLEAR POWER.

Acidus wrote:

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS...yada yada yada.

Tons of new refineries means dick when the two major pipelines for the south go down.

Supply has become a problem because we have done nothing to slow the demand.

Can you tell that Acidus lives with an energy policy master's student?

He is, of course, 100% correct. The term he is describing is "sustainability". Our current lifestyle isn't going to hold up to the rigors of energy supply and demand.

Someone demanded nuclear power. Build more nuclear plants? Great, except we only have enough uranium supply at current capacity for another 100 years. Also, increasing our capacity to 1/3 of current demand would generate 70,000 MT of waste a year (or, the amount earmarked for sequestration in Yucca mountain). AND, it takes 15 years and $10 million dollars to build a plant which, even so, won't help us a single iota where oil is concerned. Build more refineries? Fabulous, except we only have enough oil for another 10 - 50 years at current consumption no matter who you talk to (unless, of course, that someone is cooking the books for the Whitehouse). Everyone certainly agrees that it is going to get a lot harder technically to recover the oil that's left after production peaks, which some believe has already happened. Price gouging? Imminent shortages? Radical policy change? You bet your ass.

-janelane, biking to school since 2005.

Acidus wrote:

What I, and pretty much all the Liberals I know are against aren't new Nuke plants or refineries or wells. We are against the blind abandonment of reason. We are against the pityful view that if we simply would build more refineries and drill all of Alaska, somehow all our problems will somehow disappear. They won't. Our energy problems are much more severe and require a much larger solution and anything that doesn't try to address more than "oil" is a complete waste of time.

Supply has become a problem because we have done nothing to slow the demand.

Well I'm one of those damn hippy liberals that is opposed to new nuke plants, not because I expect Chernobyl 2 but because we've got no where to stick the crap that comes out of them. Given the time it takes to build new plants and the cost to stick the garbage somewhere, I don't see that as a reasonable plan of attack.

Neither is taking the oil. We're finding that lesson out the hard way in Iraq right now. So what are options?

First, the obvious ones. We've already pretty much tapped the hydro solution, at least in the form of dams, but on a smaller scale, generators driven the way mills were a hundred years ago is probably doable without crippling the environment we need intact to live on.

Second, we've ignored wind generation because the big things are considered eyesores. Well, too bad. Wind is one thing we can pretty much count on as long as there's still an atmosphere.

Third, direct solar power. There are already low tech things like solar water heaters all over. Simple things like that can decrease oil dependancy without changing quality of life, and that says nothing about potential high tech options like photo-voltaic farming.

In some areas, geothermal is doable, but that is much more difficult, to say nothing of dangerous because it means living closer to volcanoes.

Then there are weird alternatives like the turkey parts into oil thing (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Oil-From-Turkey8jun03.htm). Piping methane from old garbage dumps into power generation. I'm sure given some time other odd things will pop up that work.

I'm sure at some point we'll end up drilling ANWAR. Frankly, I'd much rather do that when we really NEED to do it instead of doing it because it seems cheap to do. The truth is that we do virtually none of these, and grossly underfund research into other options.

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

Tons of new refineries means dick when the two major pipelines for the south go down.

This isn't a manifestation of not having enough refineries. 40% of refineres are on the Gulf Coast for a reason: Thats where the oil tankers come. 40% of the refineries us horrible liberals "stopped" you from building would be damaged as well.

What I, and pretty much all the Liberals I know are against aren't new Nuke plants or refineries or wells. We are against the blind abandonment of reason. We are against the pityful view that if we simply would build more refineries and drill all of Alaska, somehow all our problems will somehow disappear. They won't. Our energy problems are much more severe and require a much larger solution and anything that doesn't try to address more than "oil" is a complete waste of time.

Funny how your misplaced anger isn't directed at the FUCKER in the White House whose energy policy did NOTHING of substance to lower our oil demands.

You blame "Communists." I blame every Presidential Administration from Carter on for failing to act. Did the Embargo's of the 1970s teach us nothing?

Supply has become a problem because we have done nothing to slow the demand.

What Acidus said. :)

skullaria wrote:

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

ibenez wrote:

You know, if you LIBERALS (aka communists) would let us rational people build refineries, build nuclear power plants, and drill for oil - this problem wouldn't really be so bad because we'd have much greater supply and distribution channels.

Oh well... thanks a lot tree-huggers.

Tons of new refineries means dick when the two major pipelines for the south go down.

This isn't a manifestation of not having enough refineries. 40% of refineres are on the Gulf Coast for a reason: Thats where the oil tankers come. 40% of the refineries us horrible liberals "stopped" you from building would be damaged as well.

What I, and pretty much all the Liberals I know are against aren't new Nuke plants or refineries or wells. We are against the blind abandonment of reason. We are against the pityful view that if we simply would build more refineries and drill all of Alaska, somehow all our problems will somehow disappear. They won't. Our energy problems are much more severe and require a much larger solution and anything that doesn't try to address more than "oil" is a complete waste of time.

Funny how your misplaced anger isn't directed at the FUCKER in the White House whose energy policy did NOTHING of substance to lower our oil demands.

You blame "Communists." I blame every Presidential Administration from Carter on for failing to act. Did the Embargo's of the 1970s teach us nothing?

Supply has become a problem because we have done nothing to slow the demand.

What Acidus said. :)

We'll, I went a little overboard I guess. I blame environmentalists (tree-huggers). We should have nuclear power, which would reduce our need for oil, except for automobiles.

We should have nuclear power in every state, and it's the environmentalists who lobby against that - it just so happens than they are all also democrats.

ibenez wrote:

We'll, I went a little overboard I guess. I blame environmentalists (tree-huggers). We should have nuclear power, which would reduce our need for oil, except for automobiles.

We should have nuclear power in every state, and it's the environmentalists who lobby against that - it just so happens than they are all also democrats.

-sigh- You (and every other ill-informed consumer) simply don't know what you're talking about. At least you admit that nuclear will do nothing to assuage the oil problem. Nothing but reduced consumption is the answer. And, even then, we will be re-inventing energy sources forever because their efficiency losses will always be exploitable for another joule of energy.

See my previous post for the numbers.

-janelane, Public Policy and Mechanical Engineering double-masters student at Georgia Tech

janelane wrote:

ibenez wrote:

We'll, I went a little overboard I guess. I blame environmentalists (tree-huggers). We should have nuclear power, which would reduce our need for oil, except for automobiles.

We should have nuclear power in every state, and it's the environmentalists who lobby against that - it just so happens than they are all also democrats.

-sigh- You (and every other ill-informed consumer) simply don't know what you're talking about. At least you admit that nuclear will do nothing to assuage the oil problem. Nothing but reduced consumption is the answer. And, even then, we will be re-inventing energy sources forever because their efficiency losses will always be exploitable for another joule of energy.

See my previous post for the numbers.

-janelane, Public Policy and Mechanical Engineering double-masters student at Georgia Tech

It's not that simple on either side. We cannot simply abandon fossil fuel based energy sources since the entire world's economy is built off of them. Nuclear is not really a viable stepping stone to future technologies due to the scarcity of fuel that janelane mentioned. Even still, there are PLENTY of viable alternatives that just need to be deployed more and pricing will stabilize, while technology does the rest.

A sensible energy policy would have this country going on a ramp starting today to gradually replace fossil fuels with sustainable sources such as solar, hydro, and wind - say over 20 years - to 60% of our energy needs. In 20 years, you'll easily have brought down the cost of these types of systems to be ubiquitous, and other technologies such as fuel cells and photovoltaics will have come along nicely thanks to that investment. You'll probably always need coal, natural gas, and oil for a small subsection of uses for at least another 100 years. But for God's sake, don't sit idly by and pretend that now is not the time to act! It was the time to act in 1975!

If anything, this current 'crisis' is probably the best thing to happen to us. I've been saying for 15 years that if the US had to pay for gas like the Europeans did, we would've had sustainable energy platforms a decade ago. Now that it's starting to drag on the economy in a major way, and it's hitting Joe Sixpack in the wallet on a daily basis, it's time to put the spotlight on the issue. It's not Iraq. It's not terrorism. It's not Katrina. It's our shortsighted, profit motivated culture that's doing this to ourselves. That has nothing to do with treehuggers or republicans or anything. It's going to be survival mode for everyone if we don't make the change NOW!

If anything, this current 'crisis' is probably the best thing to happen to us. I've been saying for 15 years that if the US had to pay for gas like the Europeans did, we would've had sustainable energy platforms a decade ago. Now that it's starting to drag on the economy in a major way, and it's hitting Joe Sixpack in the wallet on a daily basis, it's time to put the spotlight on the issue.

i am a brit and i pay £0.923 per litre which works out as $6.429 per US gallon you've had it so cheap for so long that there is no incentive to conserve.
i, petrol (gas) is finite
ii, possibly it is having a green house effect (the US administration says that's nonsense and just about every other government on the planet signed up to Kyoto to limit emissions)
iii, I don't like nuclear but we have to do something now and despite the nuclear waste and all the other problems of nuclear not to mention issues of countries like Iran jumping from a power program to a weapons program. I am a tree hugger who likes his motorbike, computer, iPod and a modern industrial way of life. A modern lifestyle is very energy expensive.
iv, more refineries! cheaper gas! stick your head in the ground and pretend there's no problem
v, Or we can make some tough choices
vi, time America woke up and smelled the coffee
vii, $6.42 per gallon is slightly high by UK standards

UK fuel price reports

janelane wrote:

ibenez wrote:

We'll, I went a little overboard I guess. I blame environmentalists (tree-huggers). We should have nuclear power, which would reduce our need for oil, except for automobiles.

We should have nuclear power in every state, and it's the environmentalists who lobby against that - it just so happens than they are all also democrats.

-sigh- You (and every other ill-informed consumer) simple don't know what you're talking about. At least you admit that nuclear will do nothing to assuage the oil problem. Nothing but reduced consumption is the answer. And, even then, we will be re-inventing energy sources forever because their efficiency losses will always be exploitable for another joule of energy.

See my previous post for the numbers.

-janelane, Public Policy and Mechanical Engineering double-masters student at Georgia Tech

Ok fine sure. This whole site is a bunch of libs or people who don't want to call themselves libs but who really are.

Here's what I know. We use oil. We, USA, don't have a lot of our own oil so we import it. If we do have a lot of oil, then we are importing it because we can't refine it. Oil=bad.

My suggestion is to attack more countries and take their oil for now.

Nothing but reduced consumption is the answer.

You're saying there is absolutely no medium or long term energy solution? I thought we had 400 years of coal in the US. I haven't read about plutonium supplies. Is there an absolute limit of 100 years worth? Clearly, in 100 years a moon based solar system could be constructed, if there is no other option.

Decius wrote:

Nothing but reduced consumption is the answer.

You're saying there is absolutely no medium or long term energy solution? I thought we had 400 years of coal in the US. I haven't read about plutonium supplies. Is there an absolute limit of 100 years worth? Clearly, in 100 years a moon based solar system could be constructed, if there is no other option.

Long term energy solution? Not possible. We can't absolutely foresee the world's energy needs in 2050, or how that might change as we react to the changing needs of the next half-century. Too many damn variables. :-) How high can energy consumption go? What if Africa starts to industrialize? The U.S. consumes a 1/4 of the world's energy production, yet China has 4 times as many people; what is the energy [political] environment going to be like when they hit full capacity and eclipse us? When world population hits 9 billion in 2050? Will energy consumption for agriculture outweigh the need for an inefficient vehicle? No one can really say. Economists will tell you that we will invent new ways to harvest energy, find new technological fixes for the growing demand. We can't address anything unless we start now with what we have. I think only conservation, and not technology, has the exclusive potential to be the only answer. If we conserve now, there's no telling how far we will be able to get with current technology -- we can certainly get as far into the future as anyone can reasonably predict.

-janelane, passionately