Question of the Week: What is the best way to reduce fossil fuel use?
Posted on April 30th, 2008 - 10:47 AMEach week we ask a question related to the environment. Please let us know your thoughts as comments. Feel free to respond to earlier comments or post new ideas. Previous questions.
Many energy alternatives to fossil fuels have been suggested - nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, conservation, etc. Each source of energy has benefits and challenges.
What is the best way to reduce fossil fuel use?
Tags: fossil fuels, Question of the Week
| Permalink | TrackBack
Question of the Week
April 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Less commuting would be one of the best ways to reduce use.
Americans on the average travel long distances to go to work, (and just about everything else they do). We as a nation have bought into “the good life” philosophy, where we want everything our way. Meaning that we like our fancy cars, fancy homes, and life in the suburbs away from the inner city.
The trouble is we have to travel long distances to get what we want. If we want to go green as a nation and reduce our total energy usage we need to get our country into a more centralized setup where people can be closer to where they work or to buy what they need to buy. Combining trips and trying to align their routes to conserve on gas is also important.
All of these other things are good also, conserving electric in our homes is important, not everyone has the ability to make use of solay energy or the other types, especially if they rent. I personally try not to heat my whole house in the winter, or use air conditioners in the summer. So my highest bill in the winter was $78 and normally during the summer (using only fans) it is only $28 (my last month was about $20 because I didn’t use heat or fans). I use laptop computers whenever possible as they use less power than desktop ones also.
[Reply]
April 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
off-topic: I am wondering why EPA has not regulated plastics such as plastic bags and plastic resin pellets under the Clean Water Act. They are killing marine life, and there is precedent for EPA regulating other substances for their impacts on ecosystems.
[Reply]
May 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
If I had a great idea on how to conserve fuel for every auto made, who would I submit that to and how could I collect on any reward money?
Sincerely,
Kenneth Clark
[Reply]
May 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
don’t have children, don’t eat meat, don’t drive
[Reply]
May 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
The single most important thing you can do to protect the planet is the one the government would never actually tell people: Don’t have kids.
[Reply]
Bill Lindeman reply on August 26, 2008 5:14 pm:
Protect the Planet??? What about protecting People??? People are the most important piece of the puzzle. The world is nothing without human life. Having kids is not the problem. Our greedy wasteful ways of living are what is destroying the planet.
[Reply]
May 1st, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Wind power. Technology has made it possible to not have to have a huge windmill to take advantage of wind for electricity generation. You can now slap a turbine pretty much anywhere — why don’t we? See more details at Green Among Gray.
[Reply]
Felipe Cervantes-Sotelo reply on August 11, 2008 9:03 pm:
We create electricity with win turbines for a litlle bit too long, if you don´t know that´s another matter
[Reply]
May 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
The Easy Answer: Not having children, is a cop out, taking that the population will only continue to grow, what can we do in light of that fact? I got an idea: Mandatory “lights out at 11:59 pm in each time zone. Blackout –power down the grids and close work, entertainment and homes from 11:00 - 6:00 am. Of course cops and other essential personnel need to be active. Think about it…
[Reply]
May 1st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Cops or other enforcers peering, perhaps busting into people’s homes. Yeah, that makes sense.
[Reply]
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 am
OK, being much more realistic, my answer really depends on who you are asking the question to - are you asking an individual person, a company or the government. If you are asking an individual - the answer seems obvious - LESS LESS LESS! Use less, buy less, eat less, drive less, have less offspring, etc.
If you are asking a corporation, the answer might be think long term and be very efficient. Any long term strategy by a corporation isn’t effective if it doesn’t decrease that corporations dependency on fossil fuels. Being efficient just makes economic sense - hopefully they will do that of their own accord.
I think the important question here is how do you drive systemic changes in the use of fossil fuels. The answer to this potentially lies with government and its ability to level the playing field, use incentives to reward good behavior and punishments to avoid bad behavior. The current system either rewards the use of fossil fuels through subsidies and other government programs or are neutral. Image if instead, we were charged a visible tax for each fossil fuel consumng activity AND were given a rebate for avoided activities.
For examle, I was reading about a study where each person was allocated a certain number of miles to drive. If they didn’t use all their miles, they were given a cash rebate (incentive)on the miles they didn’t use. If they used them all. No exchange. If they went over, they had to pay (pentalty). What they found was that the cash rebate was a more powerful motivator than having to pay. What this tells me is that raising the price at the pump doesn’t change behavior but maybe providing propoer incentives will.
The question is - what incentives will work and do we have the political will to actually embrace them and make a change.
[Reply]
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
It’s easy: put a big honking tax on fossil fuels and then stand back and watch markets generate solutions.
Too bad conservatives have demagogued taxes for so long — this option is a nonstarter politically.
[Reply]
May 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am
I believe hydrogen separation from water deserves massive attention, and NOW. We should be working 24/7/365 on this, and money should not be an issue preventing research. The future of our standard of living is at risk, as is our enonomy. If we can’t find the money, we should stop all economic assistance to oil-producing states that are not acting on our behalf. Let’s form a global coalition of our “friends” to achieve this. It’s time the oil industry takes a back seat, big-time. They no longer can be allowed to set national policy, and control our lives. Have you ever heard of revolution? Its coming if we don’t get a handle on this problem, and throw in the illegal alien problem as well. The American people are among the most patient in the world; however, they are not stupid, and will not allow corruption and greed to ruin our country. The “good ole’ days” are coming back, whether its by government or otherwise.
Please hurry!
[Reply]
Bill Lindeman reply on August 26, 2008 5:22 pm:
Hydrogen seperation from water is an idea, but I am not sure it is a very good one. It takes a lot of energy to seperate the hydrogen atoms from water molecules. From what I understand to seperate the hydrogen from water you need to produce electricity and to produce electricity you need to burn a fuel such as coal. There are systems that use solar power to faciliatate this process but that is an ineffcient use.
[Reply]
May 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The manufacturers of paper in this country already are using a very Viable Way of Removing the Complex Sugars from Plant Debris so they can make a usable paper pulp. The pulp is primarily made from a hydrid pulp producing tree which matures in about 5 years.
The Exact Same Process for removing the Complex sugars from the pulp trees can also be untilized in removing the same Sugars from Any Form of Plant Debris and even some Raw Forms of Paper (Such as cardboard).
The paper manufacurering industry in the United States today Generates enough Black syrup (Plant sugars that are removed) to Distill into about 5 Billion Gallons of Methyl-Alcohol Yearly. At the present time the Paper Industry uses this Syrup in a Bulk manner which is Extremely Wasteful.
This is the Best and Most Economical Fuel one can Generate because of the Methane Gas which is incorporated into the Ethyl-Alcohol as a Liquid.
There was a time when Racing Dragsters used methyl-Alcohol exclusively as a fuel and were generating 600-900 Horsepower in there race cars. they were commonly called Alcohol Dragsters.
Now to another matter that is extremely viable as is the Methyl-Alcohol, is the Other Use of Methane Gas itself.
In a town aproximately about 25,000 people, if it were to Utilize the Human Waste in a Step Down Dome Collection System of Airiation Tanks, it is Feasable that the Methane Gas Created by the Bacteria which is Natural in the Waste could Generate enough Collectable Methane Gas to Power a Gas Turbine Engine Propelling a Dynamo, which in turn Could Generate That Towns Own Electrical Needs.
The Bacteria is Commonly Sold in Grocery Stores as Rid-X for Septic Systems to Help Break Down the Solids thus Generating Methane Gas.
The Benefit of this System is Triple Fold. First, you Get Methane Gas to Generate Electricity. Second, the Bacteria in a 72 Hour Period Reproduces Itself 100 Times. Thirdly,When the Bacteria dies it Floats to the Surface and can be Collected and Dried and Utilized As A Natural Fertilizer to Replace the Mass Production of the More Lethal Artificial Fertilizer Known as Anhydrous Ammonia, Freeing up Tens of Billions of Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Now Being Used to Manufacturer the previous Fertilizer.
These 2 Fertilizers have No Comparison when it comes to Soil Absorbsion. For the Soil is Just as Alive an Organism as you or I. Being So it Recognizes the Natural Fertilizer as Such and the Absorbsion Rate is Approxamately 97%. Compared to Anhydrous which is around 70%.
Comparing the 2 Fertilizers as to Run Off if Applied 2 Hours Prior to a Heavy Rain The Bacterialogical Fertilizer, which Comprises Within itself Roughly About 97% Nitrogen and 3% Potash. This Coming from a Natural Source such as the Bacteria Generated From the Collection Methane Gas out of the Cities Sewage, Will be Absorbed at a Rate Which Leaves About Only 3% for Runoff.
Compared to that of Anhydrous which is Artificial, which the Soil Cannot Absorb at as High a Rate is left to be Absorbed at a Much Slower Rate and Has a Runoff Rate of Approxamately 30-40%.
The Waste Water left over After Collection of Al the Available Methane Gas, one Can Utilize a Simple Filtering Process and be Released Back into Nature with Little if Any Affect. As the Bacteria Having Digested all the Toxic Solids and Viable Waste out of the Liquids vertually Leaves the Water Almost Contaminant Free.
This process has been known about for hundreds of years and sadly very little thought has ever been given to Methane Gas as a possible fuel sorce. The main reason being that there was not at the time enough available waste to make Methan Gas a Feasable Option.
However with the masses of people we have in cities today it is not only a Feasable Option, But A Necessary One if we are to ever free ourselves from the use of Highly Pollutive Hydracarbon Fuels.
[Reply]
Felipe Cervantes-Sotelo reply on August 11, 2008 8:49 pm:
I think nowdays they are making fuels from any source available, regardless if they use corn, rice or sugar cane, America runs on fuel untill some one comes with the rigth idea of using solar for car energy consumption
[Reply]
May 5th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I had a question for the experts: Is riding the train always better for the environment than driving a car? My colleagues and I are traveling to a nearby conference (about 250 miles away) - should we carpool and save a fair amount of money? Or should we all book train tickets (more expensive but presumably better for the environment since the train is going to run with or without us, but our carpool car emissions could be spared)?
[Reply]
Felipe Cervantes-Sotelo reply on August 11, 2008 8:43 pm:
Leave it to your own justment. if you are many ride the train, I´m not an expert but the more you are the better the train
[Reply]
May 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I see cars, big vehicles and trucks with large engines traveling well in excess of the posted speed limit (65 mph) on our nation’s highways. Most vehicles are “flying” across our highways for no other reason than “because they can.” There have been a number of suggestions for increasing fuel milage such as ensuring proper tire inflation, using correct grades of oil as well as more efficient fuel vehicles, ethanol fuels, etc. However, when we were faced with the 1973 fuel shortages (there just wasn’t enough fuel to go around), Congress cut the national speed limit to 55 mph. Within a short period of time, we had more fuel than we knew what to do with. An interesting side effect was that the traffic fatalities rates decreased, as well.
If we could return our speeds on the highways to 55 mph again, we would probably dramatically decrease our fuel consumption. I read where traveling over 60 mph actually increases fuel consumption by 20% or more (with higher speeds, that number would be even greater). And we wouldn’t have to wait 10 years for more fuel efficient vehicles - it would make a dramatic difference in a short period of time. I’ve tried it on my car - I went from 28 mpg traveling at 70+ mph to about 37 mpg traveling between 55 and 60. Our accident rates would probably go down as well. And more interestingly, the oil companies with more oil on the market than they could sell, would see a substantial decline in their profits as people purchased less fuel. Seems like an easy enough solution to make a huge impact. But we just won’t do it. If we continue to drive like there’s no tomorrow, there won’t be any gas - tomorrow.
[Reply]
Felipe Cervantes-Sotelo reply on August 11, 2008 8:41 pm:
I do agree 55 per hour should be the limit, some others join the Air force they do a little higer there, let´s be fare 55 is alrigth !!
[Reply]
May 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
To best way for the EPA to reduce fossil fuel use would be for the EPA to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision last year pursuant to Massachusetts v. EPA by establishing national rules that require CO2 emissions be reduced from cars and coal-fired electric plants. But EPA has not complied with the high court’s direction. Rather EPA has approved, and is poised to approve, additional new coal-fired electric plants without first comlying with the Supreme Court’s decision.
And EPA should have granted California’s request to improve its auto mileage which would have reduced fossil fuel use.
Suggested next question of the week: Do you find it disingenuous and harmful to our nation that EPA leadership asks what you can do as consumers and presents a voluntary approach from industry sources when US greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase 1% annually? Consider that these same leaders have used their power and authority to block States from reducing their fossil fuel use and have failed to comply with the high court’s clear direction.
[Reply]
May 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Hello Newsletter…
Yeterday! I seen newsletter- an environment care, develop expansion , protect…
U see research work survey first India, brazil countries and last America country.
The India country were not study An environment…
An environment is empty in the India country. The nature are not stand more tree, air dump humidity between the road, empty ground. In the cities near home, office house, shop building crowd come sweat. Some tree stand near shop on the floor. An environment are dump humidity hence body tension, headache. Use dirty, dust air damage stormy wind hence next increase expansion dump humidity & cyclone.
From hear NEWSLETTER-
A tree is important utilize air wind clean an environment hence away out dump humidity & cyclone. A tree use left-right & between side road, near shop, in the garden, out office & home. U do not break tree over the mountain. Do not near crowd building house.
[Reply]
May 12th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Nuclear. No question about. “What about the dangers?” many ask. More people die each and every year from coal and/or oil production than the entire history of Nuclear power. “What about the waste?” It is manageable. Nuclear is EXTREMELY efficient.
[Reply]
Felipe Cervantes-Sotelo reply on August 11, 2008 8:35 pm:
Nuclear is efficient all rigth, but as far as I concern there is not safeway to process the nuclear waste so far, sorry about that
[Reply]
May 14th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Why not follow the idea the Brazilians had. Mandatory carpool. Depending on the last number that they have in their car tag, they are not allowed to drive one day of the week. Example. tag # 2009. tags ending with the number 9 can’t be on the road on mondays. People breaking the rules will get a stiff ticket. more than 3 times and they loose their license for 6 months. How about giving the revenue from tickets to a fund for new biofuel research?
[Reply]
May 14th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I am surprised that nobody has suggested solar power (photovoltaics) which is the only real answer to the problem with global warming. It’s time for the President (like Kennedy did in 1963 with the national proclamation to explore space) to proclaim a national project by 2020 to supply 40% of our energy needs by solar. The scientists and many in the know, realize this. But it is swept under the rug with the favorite oil interests. Did you know that using about 20% of the land area of Nevada, this could easily be accomplished. Now we would not totally use Nevada, but there is much wasted desert area that could support this use. Did you know that all energy falling on the solar cells is shading the earth — so we have not heating effect by the energy collection. That’s about the ONLY known energy production that can make this statement. I don’t have all the figures here but generally, this energy collection technique will be the only successful method of the future. I can provide some convincing figures to support this if there is any interest on your part. But I will stand on my statement that the future includes solar, there is no escaping this. Let’s get started now. Time is waisting and the serious issue of global warming isn’t going away. IT will only injure our kids and descendents if we don’t take on our responsibility for the fix now. Thanks for the forum to speak this important topic.
[Reply]
May 27th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The best way to reduce fossil fuel use is to make more biofuels.
“Eighty-five million barrels of oil a day is all the world can produce, and the demand is 87 million,” Boone Pickens says.
Americans need to get the “Facts” not “framed” rhetoric and misinformation which the oil companies are spending over $100 million dollars a year to bash ethanol.
It is just not right. Farmers only get about $.19 cents from the dollar for their product. It is just totally unfair.
I believe gasoline and diesel prices will be over $6.00 per gallon by Labor Day or sooner. We have not seen nothing yet. The OPEC countries and oil producing countries are just laughing at us on the way to the bank with our American dollars.
Americans are spending over $200,000 per minute buying foreign oil and that does even include the military costs or military lives lost. We all need to wake up and smell the OIL.
90% of all Americans don’t believe for one minute that corn and ethanol have anything to do with the escalating costs of food prices.
Diesel fuel, which transports all the food across the US has gone from $1.50 per gallon to almost $5.00 a gallon.
Fertilizer costs have risen 67% this year and this is made from natural gas (energy).
People are finally waking up and “Smelling the Oil”
Watch this video clip on ethanol on Fox News. Even people in Egypt are blaming OIL for the high rises in food prices including bread.
Oil Gets The Blame
Video on Fox News
Posted By Ken
May 13, 2008
http://corncommentary.com/2008/05/13/oil-gets-the-blame/329/
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/bread-crisis/1658247704?icid=acvsv3
Egypt blames the price of food on oil.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=287918&sMPlaylistID
Egypt blames the price of food on oil. I believe we all need to wake up that this is not there is not a “food shortage”
The weak dollar, corrupt governments all over the world on food distribution issues, increasing food demand from the rising middle class in China and India and years of drought in Australia and parts of the European Union that have led to worldwide shortages of wheat and of course the hedge funds and future traders and speculation are driving up the prices in the commodities markets artificially inflating the prices of corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and everything. They lost their shirts on the stock market in the housing market crisis which they all caused in the sub prime market and credit crisis. Unprecedented amount of speculative trading in the commodities markets is creating artificially high crop prices. Corn should only be around $4.00 to $4.20 a bushel, not $6.00 a bushel.
The rich are getting richer at the expense of the middle class and poor all over the world. The price of corn is not rising by supply and demand like it should.
Above the farmer in the food chain are processors, distribution systems and grocery stores. We are all familiar with how energy prices are affecting the retail costs of goods.
Food products are no different. And because of the refrigerated nature of much of the food system, those delivery costs can be even higher. Labor costs are also a factor, as is the fact that as consumers, we are constantly demanding more convenience in our food products.
Finally, food suppliers are raising food prices simply because they can.
Food prices rose 4% last year, while oil prices rose 40%. Oil price increases are driving food prices up, not the increase in biofuel production. Despite the corn ethanol program, U.S. corn exports have not decreased at all, while overall American farm exports are up 23%. Furthermore, the protein content of the corn used to make ethanol is saved and made into distillers grain, which is used for cattle feed. So no one is going hungry because of the corn ethanol program.
Wheat and rice have nothing do with ethanol production whatsoever.
Corn used for ethanol is “cattle corn” not sweet corn people eat. There is over 1.3 Billion bushels of corn in surplus.
There is “No Shortage of Corn”
The starch from the corn is extracted to make ethanol and the distiller grains, a co-product, is a high protein feed for livestock better than the original corn kernel.
There is no shortage of corn. We have exported over 23% more corn in all of history.
The high price of diesel and other energy costs have 3 times the impact on food at the store or anywhere in the world. Diesel fuel was $1.50 last year, now it over $5.00 per gallon.
A product normally, food or anything else, travels at minimum 1,000 miles on a big long haul truck to get to the grocery store. So, it now costs $5,000 to get product from point A to point B, instead of $1,500. This is a 33% increase in fuel costs where food has only gone up 3% to 4%.
People are finally realizing that “OIL” is the blame.
[Reply]
June 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Well I think all the latest stuff about people installing hydrogen car kits is great, this means that people are saving money, and reducing their carbon foot print, and also they are reducing the need for reliance on oil as a fossil fuel.
more on the kit here : http://www.hydrogencarkit.net
This is really the direction that we need to be heading in, and fast. The worlds supply of oil is running out quickly, so we need to change our habits at a similar speed.
Wake up people!
[Reply]
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Some people drive everyday because they need to carry out their business. For example, I run an in-home daycare and I transport children to/from school. No buses are available within a certain radius of the school. We could walk if I had two other adults to push strollers and corral kids. So, a heavy-handed “fine” for driving on a certain day would penalize people like me. I know the idea is to target one person/vehicle commuters, but there would be unintended consequences that need to be addressed.
[Reply]
July 9th, 2008 at 6:00 am
How To Run A Car On Water…
I am able to find some helpful information here to prepare some nice content. Any idea where can I find similar posts?…
July 14th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I have a simplistic idea that could be very effective but would take a little legislation and later would be big as the interstate system. 1st it starts with a tow bar and a reciever that would make it able to connect a vehicle to the back of a 18 wheeler while traveling down the interstate. Then an electric car with the tow bar that would have front wheel drive and rear wheel charging while it is being pulled. To go more advanced, a swivel seat on both sides of the vehicle with all the options of home in the rear, computer with internet, tv, etc and of course the seat reclines to sleep. After this catches on audio/video comunication between the driver of the 18 wheeler and the towed vehicle via usb when the connection is made. This would make it possible for the driver of the electric towed vehicle to comunicate to the driver as to where stops are made, video to see where your going. In dash gps would be nice. Virtually a vehicle could travel from LA to NY, NY with out any fuel and arriving with tanks(batterys full and somewhat 2 to 3 hundred miles of range).
Later trains could be run down the interstate or roads built beside the rr tracks, with another or improved tow bar. Basically its letting the vehicles that are far from electric but are big enough to carry the load, do the work.
A fee could be charged and regulated through the usb connection and internet. The 18 wheelers could be equipted with signs as to destinations, whether it is single driver or team(non stop) and other pertinent information.
This would allow the individualality of owning your own vehicle but still achieving car pool. Comuters could charge thier vehicle at home, drive to the interstate and make a hitch for as long as they will, then switch to another 18 wheeler or 2 until they made it to thier destination. As many trucks that are on the road now, this would be easy.
Right now it would be posssible with a hitch that would connect to the D.O.T. bumper and communications through a C.B. radio. A cash tip to the Driver of the truck would make it obtainable and the truck would only loose somewhat a fraction of a MPG to at most 2 MPGs. Some hybrids are already equiped to do this somewhat. The hybrids charge when you let off the accelerator.
This would be the best interum on the switch from fossil fuel to electric.
I have tried to find fianacial help with this idea but have failed as I am a laymen and would love any help to get this going.
[Reply]
July 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Here’s a plan of action for our goverment to follow!
Dust of the coffee pots at Los Alamos and at the skunk works and fiqure out how to improve the lightening strike protection technology that already exists. Apply the knowledge to hydrogen generation. Envision truckable hydrogen generators that could be easily connected in the field to many other units forming a row of containers as long as desired. Every lightening strike that hits would go to ground through the units and Viola! our goverment just made lots of Hydrogen!
As our goverment did with the hydroelectric dams, Give the system to some megaenergy giant to manage!
Enact a similar bill to the Rural Electrification act. The Rural Hydrogenation act! Giving the megaenergy companies almost free money to revamp Americas fuel delivery systems to hydrogen. delivery.
Mandate that goverment purchases would require a large percentage of alternative powered cars and trucks. All goverment buildings would reguire solar panels. Develop mini hydrogen generators that can be hooked to solar panels.
Our goverment should lead America into Alternative energy!!!
Or be replaced by somebody who will!!!
Rich Trojan Richard@trojanandson.com
[Reply]
August 11th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
It is good for us to use the solar systems available to heat water for showers, turn off the water heaters when not in use.
That someone inventor comes with the idea of a solar powered car.
That the effort for putting off fires in the forest brcocame more efficient, like controling them with a flying team of fire figthers, that put off the fires rigth in their source.
in creasing the use of bycicles to do exersice and do different errands as well.
Walk instead of using the automovile whenever possible, and so far and so on PLANT A TREE IN THE FOREST…
[Reply]
September 1st, 2008 at 5:57 am
SOLAR all the way. No need to give up the comforts that we are use to like cell phones, iPods….we just need a way to power them more ecofriendly. I picked up this cool solar charger at http://www.ecogeekliving.com
[Reply]
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Wind power. Technology has made it possible to not have to have a huge windmill to take advantage of wind for electricity generation. You can now slap a turbine pretty much anywhere — why don’t we? See more details at Green Among Gray.
It’s time the oil industry takes a back seat, big-time. They no longer can be allowed to set national policy, and control our lives.
he high price of diesel and other energy costs have 3 times the impact on food at the store or anywhere in the world. Diesel fuel was $1.50 last year, now it over $5.00 per gallon.
You can use the media as http://www.superreplicaslamborghini.com and other similar websites that are highly visited worldwide to publicize information like this.
[Reply]