Compare Natural Gas Prices Archives

I am going to be buying a new water heater next month and I’m trying to find prices at major stores (Sears, Home Depot, Lowes, etc) for natural gas water heaters that qualify for the tax credit (Energy Factor >0.82 OR a thermal efficiency of at least 90%.) I want to see how much more they are compared to normal water heater. Anyone know pricing and/or can you provide links to them?

oil vs natural gas pricing?

I want to find a graph that I can use to track the price of oil against the price of natural gas. I would like it to be like the many graphs I have seen that allow you to post a graph for example… GE and compare its share price against the DJI or S and P 500. But I cannot even find a graph for any oil or gas prices. Just individual stocks. And I would like to be able to cut and paste if for a memorandum. Yes, I will give credit.
I want to compare the prices for oil vs. natural gas for the last 12 months. Many thanks in advance.
Wow . This is a great site !
There is a wealth of information here especially if you use all the links.

Do you know how to copy the graphs? There is no right click cut/paste or copy…the usual things we would use.
Do you have any ideas ?
Thanks for your help

I want to find out what the break even point is in terms of price and I need the formula to do it.

I’m looking to buy a car here and was doing the research. The Cost to Own of Hybrids was consistently more than similar (or same) model non-Hybrids. The only advantages Hybrids have is with the fuel costs over the life of the car, and the Hybrid tax credit. But, they’re at a disadvantage with almost everything else. And, they’re killed by the depreciation, due it seems to the high invoice price. (O.K. I think I just unintentionally made a really good argument for buying Hybrids Used.)

But, just to compare the two cars I’m liking, the Honda Civic super-basic trim has a CtO of ,200 and the Honda Civic Hybrid ,900. And, the Civic Hybrid is actually way more affordable and closer to the CtO of its non-Hybrid sister model than the other Hybrids I’ve been looking at.

Here’s what I’m thinking. The projected Cost to Own is based on a few guesses, like how much mileage you’re likely to have, and the price of gas pretty much staying where it is.

Now I don’t want to read doomsday predictions about how we’re going to go all Mad Max. I don’t. But, it’s natural to suppose the trend of gas prices going up is going to continue.

I mean the reason it happened in the first place is because people in developing countries have been buying cars, so the demand for gas has gone up. These countries aren’t done developing. Or, to put it another way, there’s alot of people in the world who haven’t bought a car yet.

Back to the Civic I figure with the differences in CtOs not including the cost of gas (,300), the cost of gas would pretty much have to double (,300/(,600-,200)=~1.8). And, that’s pretty much just for the Honda Civic. I’m having a real hard time imagining a horrible nightmare scenario where the Ford Fusion Hybrid New would be a better buy than the Ford Fusion New.

I guess I’ve pretty much already answered my own question. But, I have another scenario for all of you. If someone starts mass producing Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars for mass sales, what’s that going to do to the price of gas? I’d expect it to go down partly because the demand for gas would be stemmed somewhat, but mostly just because the gas companies would want to incentivise their consumers keeping combustion cars.

I guess the big question there is, how likely is that to happen in the next 5 years? Or however long? Isn’t it odd how these "alternative" cars have the potential to sabotage each other?

And, how competitive is hydrogen with gas as a fuel? Obviously, there’s the old issue that hydrogen would have to build their distribution from the ground up. But, once that’s done, how much would a mile fueled by gas cost vs. a mile fueled by hydrogen?

Gas comes out of the ground with it’s energy already in it. Petroleum pumps try to be (and are) highly energy efficient. But, pumping a liquid out of minerals… Well, isn’t that like squeezing blood from a stone?

Hydrogen you have to use up energy to electrolyze it or refine it from fossil fuels. I’m not bothered so much by the greenhouse implications. From an engineering standpoint it’s an energy storage device. What’s the cost? Electricity is cheap. Right?

Then there’s the comparative fuel economies of fuel cell and combustion cars. Hydrogen is more energy intensive than gas. A full tank is lighter. The lightening of the cars load would give it a slight advantage in fuel economy. Wouldn’t it? (Get the image of hydrogen making balloon floaty cars out of your head please. It so doesn’t work that way.) Also, since the internal drag is on a much shorter drive train, wouldn’t that give Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars a tremendous advantage in fuel economy?
So an swers, are you saying that if I asked these other questions separately you WOULD answer them? Besides I’m dubious of that on it’s own, it kind of sounds like Y!A points farming to me, at a cost to me!

Beyond that it’s occurred to me you don’t have to double the price of gas. For vocations that involve alot of driving you could easily more than double the mileage and the fuel consumption. Like I imagine Taxi companies, if they’re not using Hybrids are pretty much losing money.
From the National Hydrogen Association: "The estimated costs for producing and delivering hydrogen to the
fueling station using today’s technologies vary from .10/gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge) to .10/gge. These hydrogen costs do not include highway taxes and do include the increased fuel efficiency of fuel cell vehicles compared to gasoline-powered hybrid electric vehicles." So best case scenario hydrogen is just competitive with gas.
An swers, sorry you did write that mileage can make a Hybrid worthwhile first. But, I still don’t like the other thing you wrote, if only because that means flooding the latest question pages with spam questions. There’s enough inane crap on here as it is.

On the other side of things, saying hydrogen as a fuel isn’t going to happen in a big way tomorrow is not the same as saying it’s never going to happen. The price of gas will go up, not least of all because people consider it to be an essential consumable. People don’t just use less simply because demand outstrips supply, so the price has to go way up to be prohibitive. Next we’d need to see a big drop in the price of electricity. Maybe when they mine the moon for tritium for fusion power, though the new fusion powerplants and the power infrastructure will still cost money on top of the price tag of a commercial lunar space program. I think the big energy conglomerates like GE can afford to do it easy. But…
I’ve never been a big fan of electric cars. I don’t think the oil companies are trying to keep them buried because they threaten their monopoly. I just don’t think they’ve ever really been any good. Granted tremendous advances in battery technology have given them a huge step forward. But, even with that and regenerative braking (an old technology which has gained new interest) electric cars’ ranges just aren’t very good. I know that sound like a strawman attack, like the old one that electric cars can’t make it up hills. But, it’s true. At the least, going on a roadtrip in an electric car is out of the question. It doesn’t help there the batteries are pretty dang heavy. But again the weight is less important than internal drag on the drive train, as well as regenerative braking. (Batteries are also expensive, but not more so than engine blocks and full drive trains, and definitely not more than hydrogen tanks and fuel cells.)

Does this worry you about cap and trade?

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy 1 billion in 2020, which is ,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to ,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
Do you also study economics? We are on our last leg as a country with this recession. This is what it is going to take to put us into a full blown depression. Email your congressman TONIGHT. Whether you are a conservative or liberal…this WILL affect you. .00 gas prices will affect you!
here is a link to contact your congressman:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

This site has eletronic links so you can email your congressman. I say blow up their emails tonight! They will be too scared to vote for cap and trade tomorrow if we show them they will not be re-elected!

Has anybody read this? Does this worry you?

"When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy 1 billion in 2020, which is ,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to ,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them."
For once guys…lets stop the fight between democrats/republicans. I understand this is supposed to be for the environment but it really is going to damage the economy! Please email/call your representative tonight! they will not vote for it if they think they will not get re-elected because of it.Raise hell! do you want to pay .00 at the gas pump? Or lose even more jobs?

Has anybody read this? Does this worry you?

"When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy 1 billion in 2020, which is ,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to ,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them."

Has anybody read this? Does this worry you?

"When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy 1 billion in 2020, which is ,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to ,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them."

Has anybody read this? Does this worry you?

"When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy 1 billion in 2020, which is ,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to ,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them."
5 hours ago - 4 days left to answer.
Additional Details
For once guys…lets stop the fight between democrats/republicans. I understand this is supposed to be for the environment but it really is going to damage the economy! Please email/call your representative tonight! they will not vote for it if they think they will not get re-elected because of it.Raise hell! do you want to pay .00 at the gas pump? Or lose even more jobs?
Bob:
how about if there is even a chance that this study has NOT been discredited…what will you tell your grandchildren YOU did. This is not about democrats/republicans. This is about the largest TAX hike ever in history and you are just going to site by and let it happen.

Has anybody read this? Does this worry you?

"When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy 1 billion in 2020, which is ,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to ,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn’t take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others — manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won’t pinch wallets, behind the scenes they’ve acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them."
5 hours ago - 4 days left to answer.
Additional Details
For once guys…lets stop the fight between democrats/republicans. I understand this is supposed to be for the environment but it really is going to damage the economy! Please email/call your representative tonight! they will not vote for it if they think they will not get re-elected because of it.Raise hell! do you want to pay .00 at the gas pump? Or lose even more jobs?
the heritage foundation is NOT the only source that is saying this.

 Page 1 of 4  1  2  3  4 »