Anyone else experiencing huge propane cost increases?

[Soapmistress]

Does it have anything to do with the unrest in Egypt ?

http://http://economictimes.indiatim...ow/7444406.cms

I also hear that food prices will increase Which must have to do with the increased cost of trucking food in to the local grocery stores.

Colleen

[Mike M.]

The price of everything is going up because the government and the federal reserve are debasing our currency to finance the budget shortfall that china doesn't finance. We're adding over a trillion dollars of debt each year to finance a massive and perpetual welfare and warfare state.

In reality the price of everything is actually staying the same, its our money that is losing its purchasing power.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Mike M.

The price of everything is going up because the government and the federal reserve are debasing our currency to finance the budget shortfall that china doesn't finance. We're adding over a trillion dollars of debt each year to finance a massive and perpetual welfare and warfare state.

In reality the price of everything is actually staying the same, its our money that is losing its purchasing power.

No. What you say may be happening, but the price of everything is not actually staying the same. Fossil fuels prices (oil, gas, coal, etc.) are experiencing increasing stress because demand is increasing relative to supply, due to three major factors - 1) Overpopulation (earth is way above its carrying capacity for humans); 2) Intensive Energy Use (the US wastes energy more than most countries because of our lifestyles); and 3) Decreasing supplies of Fossil fuels (we are running out of cheap fossil fuels, or at least several types of them) True, we have enough coal for a long time, but you can't fly planes or drive cars with coal - 30-40% of our energy usage is transportation. Oil in particular, has reached its peak production capacity, and we will be seeing less oil available in the future, even though demand keeps increasing.

All this has been discussed pretty accurately in "The Transition Handbook", a study of how our society will need to find ways to come with reduced energy per capita in the future. The future is now. Though we may still find some new oil fields, for the past forty years we have been discovering less new oil than we are consuming, and most of the new oil fields are VERY HARD to develop (such as the huge Brazilian oil find...100 miles off the coast to Brazil in deep water than makes the Gulf (think BP disaster) look like easy engineering.

So, unfortunately, threads like this thread will become increasing common in the future as energy costs continue to rise relative to other costs/inflationary pressures. The best things we can do are A) Reduce overpopulation - put in effect policies that reward a stable population, and penalize population growth; B) Reduce energy usage per capita (which will be happening whether we want it or not, just preparing for it is better that finding ourselves at the cliffs edge); and C) Transitioning to renewable energy - which can be done today - electric or natural gas cars, solar electric and solar hot water homes (mine is totally off grid solar heated by solar hot water and wood), etc.

[Mike M.]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

No. What you say may be happening, but the price of everything is not actually staying the same. Fossil fuels prices (oil, gas, coal, etc.) are experiencing increasing stress because demand is increasing relative to supply, due to three major factors - 1) Overpopulation (earth is way above its carrying capacity for humans); 2) Intensive Energy Use (the US wastes energy more than most countries because of our lifestyles); and 3) Decreasing supplies of Fossil fuels (we are running out of cheap fossil fuels, or at least several types of them)

A gallon of gas in 1964 cost .30 cents per gallon. The price of gas today is actually cheaper. (Even with us reaching “peak oil” and other countries increasing their demand.) The average price of gas is $3.17 a gallon as of today. Today those same 3 dimes you could have purchased gas with in 1964 are worth $6.90. Because of their silver content they would purchase 2.17 gallons of gas today. Try comparing the price of gas to other commodities and you’ll find that it is actually cheaper than it was.

The market place is constantly trying to improve and do things better and cheaper. For example look at the technology industry each year electronics get more advanced and prices continue to fall. Look at sectors of the medical industry (the part the government is not involved with like elective cosmetic surgery or some eye surgeries, the price goes down year after year.) When a market is free to innovate the prices will fall just like they should and have done in the price of gas.

Sources:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...t_fotw364.html

http://www.coinflation.com/coins/194...ime-Value.html

[T.H.E. Binz]

Based on the Consumer Price Index, 30 cents in 1964 would be worth only $2.10 today. Anyway, the price of gas was still 30 cents per gallon as late as 1968. Bottom line: gas prices are rising faster than other goods, but not all that much different.

[Mike M.]

Originally Posted by T.H.E. Binz

Based on the Consumer Price Index, 30 cents in 1964 would be worth only $2.10 today. Anyway, the price of gas was still 30 cents per gallon as late as 1968. Bottom line: gas prices are rising faster than other goods, but not all that much different.

The CPI isn’t accurate, that’s why I choose something like silver but feel free to use another commodity to make my point. CPI has been useless since the 90’s when they changed how it’s calculated. If you follow the link I provided to the EERE’s website it even states above the graph that “On average, the price of gasoline was higher in 2004 than it has ever been before; however, when adjusted for inflation (constant dollars), gasoline cost more in 1981 than it does today.”

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehicles...t_fotw364.html

The way they are adjusting for inflation is skewed and still shows gas has actually decreased in price. Compare it to another commodity besides silver to further illustrate my point that it is actually cheaper now if you’d like.

[Lucky1]

Originally Posted by T.H.E. Binz

Based on the Consumer Price Index, 30 cents in 1964 would be worth only $2.10 today. Anyway, the price of gas was still 30 cents per gallon as late as 1968. Bottom line: gas prices are rising faster than other goods, but not all that much different.

In 1967 I earned $5900.00 teaching school? See the difference here?

[hazmatmedic]

The original question in this thread was about propane prices. Selkirk, NY, the major terminal for New England petroleum products, was shut down in September 2010, after a leak was found in April 2010. It remained shut down through January 2011 and opened after that. That drove up the price. When propane suppliers were paying $1.40 in August 2010, they were paying $2.30 in January 2011. New Englanders were paying for the shortage and/or increased transportation costs to get product to New Hampshire.

Understand???????

[Mike M.]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

So, unfortunately, threads like this thread will become increasing common in the future as energy costs continue to rise relative to other costs/inflationary pressures. The best things we can do are A) Reduce overpopulation - put in effect policies that reward a stable population, and penalize population growth; B) Reduce energy usage per capita (which will be happening whether we want it or not, just preparing for it is better that finding ourselves at the cliffs edge); and C) Transitioning to renewable energy - which can be done today - electric or natural gas cars, solar electric and solar hot water homes (mine is totally off grid solar heated by solar hot water and wood), etc.

Your statement about overpopulation (multiple times actually) is offensive.

In other words you want to create laws (enforced by government) that would burden families with financial penalties who exceeded the acceptable number of children chosen by the government? I realize your intentions are good but your research about economics, philosophy, politics seems to be heavily weighed in favor of ideas that are completely opposing to the ideas that made this country and state great.

A)
The overpopulation you speak of wouldn’t be a problem if we removed the incentives to have children. We don’t need to stop people from having children using tyrannical laws; we need to remove safety nets that prevent people from being forced to live within their means. People need to once again have personal responsibility not new laws.

B)
Yes, we will be forced to reduce our energy consumption because of the outrageous fiscal policies of the government and the federal reserve. Using the most energy in the world doesn’t make us bad and we shouldn’t feel bad for it. Our investment in energy has benefited poorer countries with access to improving technology and cheaper energy.

C)
People don’t transition to something unless it’s a better/cheaper alternative to what they currently use.

I’m sure any boat owners, mechanics, even some environmentalist on this forum would agree that the push for putting ethanol into the fuel supply by the government caused a lot of unintended consequences and was counterproductive to its goal. Since you suggested using the government to enforce a limit on children I assume you would also support them forcing us to use ‘green’ technology even though it is still more expensive in most instances.

When green technology advances and the price drops enough or the price of other energy sources goes up enough because of actual supply shortages making the cost of green energy competitive people will do what makes financial sense for them and their families.

Your house sounds awesome; did you do anything specific to prevent heat loss with insulation and sealing? Passive homes will eventually be the norm for economic reasons especially in our area.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Mike M.

Your statement about overpopulation (multiple times actually) is offensive.

In other words you want to create laws (enforced by government) that would burden families with financial penalties who exceeded the acceptable number of children chosen by the government? I realize your intentions are good but your research about economics, philosophy, politics seems to be heavily weighed in favor of ideas that are completely opposing to the ideas that made this country and state great.

A)
The overpopulation you speak of wouldn’t be a problem if we removed the incentives to have children. We don’t need to stop people from having children using tyrannical laws; we need to remove safety nets that prevent people from being forced to live within their means. People need to once again have personal responsibility not new laws.

B)
Yes, we will be forced to reduce our energy consumption because of the outrageous fiscal policies of the government and the federal reserve. Using the most energy in the world doesn’t make us bad and we shouldn’t feel bad for it. Our investment in energy has benefited poorer countries with access to improving technology and cheaper energy.

C)
People don’t transition to something unless it’s a better/cheaper alternative to what they currently use.

I’m sure any boat owners, mechanics, even some environmentalist on this forum would agree that the push for putting ethanol into the fuel supply by the government caused a lot of unintended consequences and was counterproductive to its goal. Since you suggested using the government to enforce a limit on children I assume you would also support them forcing us to use ‘green’ technology even though it is still more expensive in most instances.

When green technology advances and the price drops enough or the price of other energy sources goes up enough because of actual supply shortages making the cost of green energy competitive people will do what makes financial sense for them and their families.

Your house sounds awesome; did you do anything specific to prevent heat loss with insulation and sealing? Passive homes will eventually be the norm for economic reasons especially in our area.

Hi Mike M.

Not sure what you mean about my statement about overpopulation being offensive. In what way is it offensive? To me, its a pretty clear fact. Now, what I think should be done about it may be offensive (to you), though I don't see why suggesting a solution is OFFENSIVE. Its seems to me it is just different that what you think needs to be done, or not done.

As a start, I'd be happy with the first step of not burdening the rest of us with paying for the large families through tax incentives (child deduction, etc.) It seems to me you and I have the same solution (for starters) in mind. I wasn't aware that I advocated anything else. I'd say in the current political climate, many people would say removing the incentives to have more children would be "penalizing" population growth.

I do totally disagree with your second statement. "Using the most energy in the world doesn’t make us bad and we shouldn’t feel bad for it." In my opinion, what the US does to the rest of the world in terms of resources is very akin to rape. Its not that we just happen to have a large amount of energy and resources available to us; our military empire supports the extraction of resources around the world. This is not controversial; it just is. "Our investment in energy has benefited poorer countries with access to improving technology and cheaper energy." This is a US Government propaganda statement - if it were true, you'd think the US would be respected and liked around the world. It isn't. Its feared, not respected, by the average person who is aware of the rape of the natural resources from their country. American "exceptionalism" (or nationalism) is just a way we turn a blind eye to any sense of responsibility as leaders of the global community.

As to the third statement, you are absolutely right. I do support the government "forcing" citizens to use green energy - how? By removing the subsidies that artificially make non-renewable energy cheaper, and instead offering subsidies that do make it significantly cheaper. As just one example, I personally see the Iraq war as mainly a way to send a message to oil regimes to do business with us on our terms. If you took away that how many trillion dollars, and put it into "green" economy, we would not be facing the catastrophic problems with regard to energy that we are facing.

House has ICF's (insulated concrete forms) which prevent heat loss on all but the south side. South side of house is uninsulated (during a sunny day) by covered up nights and cloudy days (move-able insulation). Plus the greenhouse modulates the temperature on the south side, creating an outer layer of insulation.