Motorists Sue Over 'Hot' Fuel 572
i_like_spam writes "Motorists in 13 states have filed lawsuits against big oil companies and gas retailers alleging unfair pricing practices related to fuel-pumping temperatures. From an industry standard developed in the 1920's, the price for a gallon of gasoline is based on the density of the fuel at a temperature of 60 degress F. A gallon of gas at higher temperatures is less dense, and therefore contains less energy. The lawsuits claim additional costs of 3 to 9 cents per gallon without temperature adjustments. The fuel industry claims that the costs of installing temerature-adjustment sensors on every pump would be prohibitively high. These sensors are already installed in Canada, however, where the colder temperatures favor consumers."
Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Informative)
A couple of interesting tidbits from the testimony:
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Interesting)
--
Get more energy in the summer: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That depends on which state you're in. In the two states that I've lived in where I've owned a vehicle (Michigan and Florida), the content of gasoline is regulated by the state department of agriculture. If it has ethanol in it, the pump has to say it has ethanol in it. This is partly because some types of gasoline engines absolutely cannot have gasoline with any ethanol it because it will cause engine damage. The gas stations I've gotten g
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
--
Energy supply tight? Go solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Informative)
The benefits of Ethanol are merely altruistic at this point and offer no real benefit to the consumer. Actually it has had a detrimental effect on some commodities already, as farmers switch to corn production strictly for Ethanol, it has the effect of raising prices for milk, beef, and other goods. Ultimately it will be nice to have a cleaner, renewable fuel source that can be generated domestically.
First cellulosic ethanol plant in US (Score:3, Informative)
--
Solar: The fundemental alternative: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course the answer is that the consumer pays regardless, but it raises some interesting accounting issues...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Gallon/liter/barrel is a volume based measurement system. Volume depends on density and temperature. If you package a gallon of something at a high temperature, then deliver it at a cooler temperature, you are delivering less volume than you packaged. So, if you put 4,000 liters of gas into a tanker at a temperature of 35 C in Houston, and delivered it to Detroit at a temperature of 10 C, you would only be delivering about 3,670 liters of gasoline, assuming atmospheric pressure is the same at both locat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
--
Use ethanol responsibly: Raise your glass to Solar Power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:4, Interesting)
If anyone is getting ripped by this, it's the independent fuel stations. There a fuel truck that has been driving for days or dipped out of above-ground storage might indeed be warmer. So the station is buying hot fuel. But the consumer is probably buying fuel much closer to the underground temperature. It would not be hard to fix this since measuring the temperature of the fuel truck would be easy and infrequent.
Finally, were talking a couple of percent difference in energy per gallon here. Don't people suppose that their cars efficiency might also vary by a several percent with ambient temperature?
Finally, the station sells gas by the gallon not by the BTU. you are still getting a gallon. If anything you are getting more than a gallon since it's coming out of a cold tank and then expanding in your hot car tank. So actually you owe them more not less.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
People in the United States buy around 350,000,000 gallons of gas every day. Even if the temperature difference accounts for only one tenth of a percent, that's about 350,000 gallons a day. Or $1.1 million a day at $3.15 a gallon. Pocket change to an oil company, but most people would appreciate the slightly lower gas prices.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're filling up once or twice a week, it's possible for the seemingly small savings of a few cents a gallon to add up.
(Of course it's stupid to drive across town for gas that's only a few cents cheaper, but it's not stupid to notice gas that's cheaper and fill up if you're below 1/2 a tank or so whenever you see it and when time permits.)
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:4, Interesting)
pretty much (lose more performance, than economy, since rolling resistance isn't changed much, just have to allow the extra momentum to carry you up the hills, avoid using brakes when possible.) But I figure it is our duty as free market consumers to reward stations for being competitive. IE if no one shopped around for the cheaper fuel, then their would be little incentive for their to be low cost stations that reduce their costs, and lower their prices.
The garmin GPS software on my PDA, downloads gas prices, and gives cheapest prices along my planed route. So I do that before I leave work, on days I need gas. Although on any given week it only saves maybe $2, I figure enough people do this that it keeps the prices down by double that amount.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
There's much more efficient ways to save money than shopping around for gas. [stepping down]
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
People rarely consider their own time when figuring the cost of things, so it's no surprise that the 10 minutes spent waiting is completely overlooked.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I can pretty much guaranty it was pissed away.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is precisely why stations with large shops have the cheapest gas. The margins on gas are razor thin, and most stations make their only real profit in the convenience stores. Some stations even price the gas as a loss-leader to get people into their store. (Which is also why I never buy anything at a gas station, unless I absolutely have to - like if I'm on the turnpike).
This phenomenon, got me thinking, on the east coast, many states only sell beer in liquor stores, whereas in the midwest damn near every store has a license to sell beer. I wonder how much we could decrease the cost of gas on the east coast simply by offering beer/wine liquor licenses to gas stations. In the end it is probably revenue neutral, but some politician could claim that he reduced gas prices a couple of cents.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Informative)
Vf = Vi x (1 + 950 x 10^-6 x (Tf - Ti))
Vf is final volume, Vi is initial volume, Tf is final temperature in Celsius, Ti is initial temperature in Celsius
However, as you said, the fuel is stored underground and in the time it takes for it to get pumped up and metered out it probably changes very little in temperature. The worst case is a 2.11% increase in volume but the reality is probably a minute fraction of that.
The best thing would be to have meters that measured by mass or by density and rate of flow instead of by volume. I'm not sure what sort of metering they are using for their measurement but it's probably a simple flow rate meter which assumes a certain density to calculate volume. That's one of the more simple and least costly designs to use.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Interesting)
determination
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's because the weight of the fuel is a significant factor in calculating the gross weight and the center of gravity of the aircraft.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Funny)
I knew a navel aviator once. He could never manage to break the lint barrier.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, regarding the majority of the heat in gas being due to t
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:4, Interesting)
Not if the retailer sells it at 60F, that's the whole point of the wholesalers paying the rebate. The argument would seem to be about the tempateure of the underground storage.
As another post pointed out: Neglecting the vodka content, if the retailer sells it at 67.4F he will skim ~$0.20 profit for every $50.00 of gas sold. - I'm pretty sure you would loose more than that in vapour expelled from the tank when filling up on a hot day.
Off course the reasonable answer is that everyone in the chain either does or doesn't get the adjustment, OTOH: "reasonable" and "oil company" are rarely mentioned in the same breath.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Retail gas is not a money maker - the little convenience store is what makes money.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Informative)
I've worked in tank gauge and dispenser engineering at two major petroleum equipment manufacturers. Although the gasoline is stored underground at the station, it's processed and distributed and shipped above ground at ambient temperatures. And the retailers prefer not to store too much for too long, since it's money tied up in inventory. So as you watch the fuel temperatures on the UST gauges around the country, you'll see the temperature of the product tracking pretty close to the daytime air temperatures.
The retailers, by the way, buy gasoline 'net' (temperature compensated). They require the delivery trucks to measure the temperature of the fuel they drop in the tanks, and they compare the temperature and volume change in the UST before and after the delivery when they reconcile the inventory.
I have to agree that it would be fairer to sell gasoline 'net', rather than 'gross', even though I doubt that it would affect the price consumers pay very much just due to the elasticity (or lack thereof) of demand for gas. One important note about metering retail gas 'net': you can fill an 18 gallon tank with more than 18 gallons worth of 'net' gas in the winter in cold areas. This can upset consumers, who assume they are being cheated by a dishonest dispenser. But it works OK in Canada, so we could probably adapt in the US, too.
The retailers' 'too expensive to install the equipment' argument is bogus. Gasoline pumping, metering and dispensing equipment is sold worldwide. Some places sell gas 'gross', some sell it 'net'. Some sell US Gallons, some Imperial Gallons, some litres. The same equipment is used in all these places, selecting the dispensing method is a configuration option on a modern dispenser.
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell you what, if you *truly* believe your arguments are sound, I'll sell you pound of gold (based on Jupiter's gravity), measured at prices defined against Earth gravity. You shan't complain because I'll sell the same amount of gold to someone else at Moon-measured pounds. And just to be fair, I'll measure the gold I sell you at a constant, "isojupiterpound" level. And even if you *do* think you still have grounds to complain, I'll remind you that there are other factors that will affect the value of the gold you're buying, not just the gravity I measure the pound against. Besides, you're buying by the pound, not the gram, and even if I get to choose the gravity, these measurements are all pounds, aren't they?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wake up - the reason the oil companies installed temp sensors in Canada was because otherwise, Canadians would get over 10% MORE energy (because the gas is much denser at lower temps) than in the summer.
Why not do like Canadians do - while its sold by the "litre", its really sold by weight. That's what temp. compensation is all about. You get the same weight of fuel at -40C as you do at +40C.
So why do some states outlaw this? Because they get more tax revenues, since people are buying by volumn, not by
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Congressional testimony on Hot Fuels (Score:5, Interesting)
When I would call to order 10,000L of fuel each week, they would fill the 2 compartments in the truck to 80% of their capacity (2 x 6000L compartments filled to 80% = 9600 L) and head out on the highway to my location. After an hour in the sun on a hot day driving to my location, the usual delivery quantity that the register on the back of the delivery truck would read after emptying the 2 compartments was around 9750L - I had to pay for 9750L. The same truck on a cold day in November would often deliver me only 9500L - even though at the distribution terminal they had filled the truck to their set 80% - 9600L.
My tanks were underground and typically a thermometer dip in the fuel showed a temperature around 58F. So when I bought fuel in the summer - I was often cheated of almost 150L of fuel - I would pay for 9750L to put in my tank, and it would cool down and by the time I pumped it for the customers - I only had 9600L available to pump out. My mark-up was 3c/L - so on 10,000 L approx $300. The "missing" 150L cost me about $150. My profit margin was cut in half in the summer. I figure I somewhat made up for it in the colder months - but it would have been nice if the delivery trucks had been temperature compensating.
I'm out of that business now - $300 a week profit from selling gas just doesn't pay the bills. I'm surprised any small independent gas stations are still in operation.
Of course it would be prohibitively high (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
err no it wouldn't, the offical price is per gallon at 60f. the pumps need a sensor to read the current temp and adjust the charge at the pump.
this what they are kicking about, because they are ripping people off quite a lot in hot area's, and they don't want the gravy train to end.
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Prohibitively high (Score:3, Insightful)
It might be the case where it really is prohibitively high, if it's the gas station owners that would be paying for it. They sell the gas at very thin margins, making more money on bags of chips and bottles of water.
Re:Prohibitively high (Score:4, Funny)
--
Solar power with maintenance included: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Competition (Score:3, Funny)
I bet the 3 to 9 cents is coming off the price and not out of the pocket. The only place where it really matters is when the temperature swing is large and people fueling during rush hour are left paying more than those at night, of course if the consumers were educated about that it would free up rush hour slots at the station and consumers would still win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Evidence of efficient markets (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well if they sell it a room temperature then you can still compare prices. The estimates here say that we're talking about a 2% price differential over 20 degrees Celsius. So it doesn't affect price comparisons, even if a gallon in Texas may be 1% less energy than a gallon in Alaska.
Or, did you really mean to say, that it's great the oil company bothers to ste
Should be quite easy to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there's a small amount of gas (probably less than half a gallon) above ground in the pump that will warm and cool relatively quickly but since it is only half a gallon who really cares?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Should be quite easy to do (Score:5, Funny)
I bet this guy's wife is the sort that washes cling-wrap for reuse, gets two cups per tea-bag and uses BOTH sides of the toilet paper?
Re:Should be quite easy to do (Score:5, Insightful)
But, the recent Congressional testimony [nist.gov] on this topic and the multiple lawsuits in many states (some of which are class action), makes me wonder if there's something more to the story.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That fuel was most likely stored in an ABOVE GROUND tank at the depot, then driven to the station in an uninsulated tanker truck. It could be quite a bit warmer than 60F by the time it gets into the storage tank at the filling station.
Exactly why wou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be why (Score:3, Insightful)
stating the obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
OT: Am I the only one who thinks this thread is redundant?
As fulfilling as it is to make fun of people for stating the obvious, you should at least be aware that doing so properly can be (and is) an integral part of many noble endeavours. Most proofs in philosophy and mathematics start out by stating facts that are widely known/considered to be true (ie, obvious), both to lay the foundation for inferences later on, and to orient the reader to the writer's progression of thought. You and I both know that an odd number n can be represented in the form 2k+1 (k an in
Coefficient of expansion (Score:5, Informative)
--
Get solar power with no installation cost, pay for only what the system produces: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Coefficient of expansion (Score:4, Informative)
I saw something about this a couple of weeks ago and blogged [billposer.org] about it because the numbers seemed off. The cited chart, which is the same one I used, gives the volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion for gasoline at 20C as 950e-6, which is 9.5e-4 per degree C. Dividing by 1.8 to convert degrees C to degrees F, we get a coefficient of 5.2e-4 per degree F. For an increase of 5F, that's an expansion of 2.6e-3. If gasoline is $3 per gallon, the difference is 7.8e-3 dollars per gallon, that is, about 3/4 of a cent. That's an order of magnitude less than the 3 to 9 cents per gallon that people are talking about. One or the other of us has got a decimal point in the wrong place.
Re: (Score:2)
--
Put Solar in your future: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
tanks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy Fix (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy Fix (Score:5, Funny)
The oil companies would respond by trying to accelerate global warming and push the average temperature over 100F so they can start saving money again.
go higher, and make the temperature mandatory (Score:3, Funny)
Forget the temperature compensation crap. Let's just require fuel to be served at 200 degrees.
Now that I think about it, this might help safety and environmental issues. Fuel expanding in a car's gas tank gets vented outside. That's awful. If it starts out hot and low density, venting is unlikely.
temp sensor (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone know about the hose? (Score:5, Funny)
Common Sense/Observation != Science (Score:5, Insightful)
1. (the most important) gasoline tanks are buried 10+ feet under ground. They don't experience the same temperature fluctuations that the surface does. The temperature of the tank can easily be 15-20 degree below ambient air temperature or more. Also, it doesn't fluctuate as much.
2. In the vast majority of the country, the *average* weather nullifies this. Even in Texas, where I grew up, a lot of the state averaged 40-50 for a few months out of the year. In New York, where I am now... the *average* daily temperature breaks 60 for a few months out of the year. Average is important. If it's only above 60, even 70, for a few hours out of the day that will have *no* effect on the tank which is sitting comfortably at 50 or so. So yes... a few months out of the year you're paying more for gas. But a few months out of the year your also paying *less* for gas and most of the time you're breaking even.
I can see this being a valid argument in AZ, Southern NV, AZ... places that are at 100+ right now. But everywhere else in the country it's just someone else trying to get something for nothing.
You also have to bear in mind that this is going to hurt the station owners, not the petroleum companies. In some cases the petroleum companies own your local gas station (usually only in high profit locations) but most of them are licensed by franchises (still private individuals) or independent owner/operators and they will end up eating the cost of the equipment. Not "big oil".
I'm not a shill and I actually don't care for big oil at all... but this is just a stupid lawsuit. Sue them for not pursuing alternative energy. Sue them for not upgrading to more efficient and clean refineries. Sue them for not managing their waste products.
This is just a petty waste of time and doomed to failure.
Re: (Score:2)
--
Solar power at an affordable rate: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user s -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Common Sense/Observation != Science (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Common Sense/Observation != Science (Score:4, Informative)
I know this because it was once part of my job to manually measure the levels of these tanks. The dip-stick was at most 6 feet long at the sites I worked.
In my experience the tank can be as little as 2 feet below the often hot concrete surface.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is 1% worth a law suit? Depends on your perspective I guess . . .
Station owners in a free market economy (Score:3, Interesting)
So, in a hypothetical dream-world where all gas stations are required to adjust the meaning of the US Gallon based on temperature, all gas stations in a given climatic area will be ab
So how does temp affect measuring accuracy? (Score:2, Interesting)
yeah, it's too expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
What they did there is pretty clever, eh?
Class Action Suit (Score:2)
A simple calculation from 2004-2007 (statue of limitations) of total gas pumped in all of US from all company owned pumps alone would result in excess fleecing of consumers by atleast 35 billion dollars.
A class action suit would probably result in 25% of the amount being paid out to lawyers and consumers being given coupons.
But i would still prefer it, since
I am appalled! (Score:2, Insightful)
But lets not waste time on all these diversionary tactic
Always trust what a business says (Score:5, Insightful)
Nutrasweet is harmless! (i.e. cheaper than sugar!)
IE is an integral part of Windows! (wait.. it's not yet... wait.. wait.. wait.. aaahh! now it is. congrats!)
We can offer better price and services as a single huge telecom monopoly, don't split us up! (we'll kinda merge later anyway)
Piracy causes tremendous losses to our industry! (we know this, since whatever our profits, we think they should've been 4 times that!)
Get your local government to do the work for you. (Score:5, Informative)
These are exactly the people who you want to get involved to investigate this kind of thing.
"Motorists" in 13 states means "Lawyers" (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Higher Gas Prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go Higher Gas Prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
But a reality kicked in. The poor only can afford the throw away from the rich. Right now the poor are sucking up the SUV's because they are all over the place at the $1500-$3900 price tag, which is all the car they can afford. The efficient cars like the older GEO metro the VW TDI and others are not selling for such low prices (I just sold a 3cyl Geo metro on Ebay for $6500.00 Bluebook is $3500) as the middle class are sucking them up off the used market.
So if Gas goes up it only punishes the poor. The rich and middle class like to bitch about it but it really does not affect them one tiny bit. The poor and working poor are those it hits incredibly hard as they cant afford a car that get's > 20mpg cant afford to have their car's in perfect running condition, and cant afford things like Low rolling resistance tires to beef up their cars economy (I have a 2001 Aztek, after a few modifications I am getting 28mpg.).
Soaring gas prices are simply extending the gully between rich and poor. Rich dont care, middle class bitch but really dont care as they are not selling their H2's or Surburbans to get smaller cars...
It's the poor that care. if the price were to increase enough it will make the difference between eating meat and dairy this week so daddy and mommy can get to work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So cut payroll taxes so people can get food, but we need people to snap up high-mpg cars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely stupid, I know. but it's a fact.
My daughter to take public busing to school has to leave 2 hours early, have to do a transfer in the worst part of town where you dont dare have a 14 year old white girl alone, and then get to school with only 5 minutes to get to classes. If she leaves 3 hours early she will have to wait for the school to open and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
you know there are these inventions called trailers. I get Stuff from home depot in my little car every week.
Unless you need to move 7 people AND 500 pounds of gear a SUV honestly is a silly status symbol. Dont try to justify it for anything more than what it is. A minivan would do you better service than your SUV.
Camping, Get a RV. costs as much as a trailer (if you are not stupid and buy used instead of new) and now you only
Re:Don't count your chickens too soon. (Score:4, Informative)
Homeowner here. I regularly load garden supplies into my Mazda Protege or my wife's Pontiac Vibe. I also haul 12' pieces of lumber and furniture in these vehicles. They're a lot more capable than most people think. There have been two occasions in the past two years where I needed to haul something that wouldn't fit in either of them, so I rented a truck. Seems to make a lot more sense than owning a truck just for those couple times where it's actually useful and paying hundreds of dollars more for gas.
My dad owns a 14' sailboat that he tows with a VW Passat Wagon with a 1.8L turbocharged engine.
A long time ago there were these things called station wagons and minivans. They were capable of doing all these things and still managed to get over 25mpg. Really, the only reason you don't see more of them is the stigma of parenthood. They're not seen as "hip." Most people who own SUVs could get by with one of these vehicles because the only real difference is that in most cases they lack four wheel drive. In fact, I remember my wife watching an old Lucille Ball movie where she and Desi were towing a huge Airstream trailer behind their convertible!
They might think they know their needs, but if they sat down and looked at what they used their vehicles for they would probably find they could downsize without losing any functional capability.
Re:Go Higher Gas Prices! (Score:4, Interesting)
I got over myself years ago, but nice try anyway.
Calculation of benefit for the oil companies (Score:3, Interesting)
One need to calculate the number of gallon sold in hot weather, and multiply by 1.2% of 3$ cents.
Taking this fuel consumption in gallon US 2002 [infoplease.com] for passenger car motor vehicule there was 75000 million gallon and for all motor 167000 million gallon over 2002 (likely more now). Taking ALL motor, 167000 million gallon, and assuming a constant consumption over the year (not true but bear with me) that is 450 million gallons per day. Since most people buy their fuel during day time (at least here around...) I will asumme 100% was bought during the day to simplify. So for EVERY hot day we have roughly 450 million gallon per day bought. But in reality this is for the whole US but not all state will have a very hot temperature. Looking at the population of california, texas and a few other hot state, I come to a population estimate of roughly 70 million people (texas 29M+california 36M+ a few southern bordering 5M). Naturally this is likely to be a bit of an overestimate but I do not went to write a thesis, so unless somebody has better numbers... OK so the proportion is 70/299=~24%. So the fuel consumption for those people per hot day will be 24% of 457 =roughly 105 million gallon per day
. If there is a difference of 1.2% in volume, that means consummer paid 0.036$ too much at 3$ per gallon. This means for oil company a benefice per hot day, for ALL oil company taken together : 3,7 million dollars. Now I do not know the reparition per company, but assuming saomebody knows the % that could be done. repartition.
Still for each individual the loss of 0.036$ might not be that big, but the oil market per HOT day seems to get a few millions dollar, with maybe as much as 30 hot days per years, that would make roughly 100 million dollar. Multiply by 60 years. Sum mount rreaaaallly quick. This is not a BIG sum, but this ain't small chump either.
Dipsticks (Score:5, Informative)
When I was crawling in and out of underground fuel tanks in a space suit (not really, but we called it that; the air supply was via a hose, not an air tank) I picked up more than a couple pertinent details. And after reading this article I went and looked up a couple more.
The underground temperature at the depth most tanks must reside is between 54 and 58 F depending on location (and varying 1 to 2 F over a year), not 64.7. That figured was arrived at by a company that sells the same kind of equipment this article talks about. They have a vested interest in the data. Not stated is when the measurement is taken -- just after a 5,000 gal. tanker dumps its load into a 20,000 gal tank?
Tanks need to be more than just under the surface. They need to have enough ground covering them so they don't float up out of the ground through bouyancy. Many are tied down by steel straps to a concrete cradle for this reason, but the depth underground is a fail-safe and still adhered to. They also have to be well underground anywhere a vehicle has to drive over them, or a concrete apron will cover them, so the weight above will be spread out and not collapse the tank. Thus, they're almost invariably below the level where variations will be more than a degree or two.
The average annual temperature temperature where I am, Dallas-Fort Worth, is 64.5 F. The expansion of gasoline from 60 to 64.5 is ~0.3% (0.00069 per degree F; diesel is less, 0.00050 per). The amount of gas above the ground in a piping and pump system is the only part of a fill up that'll be affected by air temperature, and then only if it sits long enough to equalize. The volume involved is from 0.5 to 1.5 gallons depending on distance from riser and style of pump+hose. The rest of what's pumped will come right from underground and will be at or less than 60 F.
If this passes, the average US driver will lose the benefit they're already getting due to the average temperature being less than 60 F. The average temperature from 1900 to 2000 is less than 60 over almost all the US (according to plots from data at NOAA's Earth Systems Research Lab http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/USclimate/USclimdivs.html [noaa.gov]
They'll also pay even more because they'll foot the bill for these devices and their installation; the big oil producers will just plow these costs into the price, and it'll never be noticed, because they can raise the price 10 times that amount, then drop it 9 of that 10, and people will think the price is so close to what it started at that they won't think about it twice.
I had more than a passing familiarity with the issue. Besides going into tanks to inspect them, I also did the annual volumetric testing of gas pumps. I had to apply the correction factor. Where I was, the upper peninsula of Michigan, the average air temperature was very much less than 60. It was 32 F when I moved there in 1976. However, we applied the correction, or rather tried to, based on measuring the temperature of the fuel in the testing can. There was a thermometer built into the glass tube on the side of the can's neck where we also measured the gas level in 0.1 in^3 increments (one part on over 10,000 for the 5 gallon testing can). The temperature was never, as far as I can recall, ever outside the 50s F range.
I'd like to hear from someone up in the Great White as to exactly why they have those temperature sensing devices installed. Whose idea was it, the gas companies' or the peoples'? The article(s; I've looked at several elsewhere) seems to imply the former, but I can't find anything explicit on it.
Interesting .. may change affairs in Oz eventually (Score:4, Informative)
(The paper with the results can be found here
http://www.aip.com.au/issues/temperature.htm [aip.com.au]
"On the basis of the CSIRO study, Federal and State Consumer Affairs Ministers decided in 1996 that the costs, both capital and ongoing, of temperature correction outweighed any potential benefits.
The extra costs involved in temperature correction would put additional upward pressure on petrol prices.
All the oil companies have in place procedures for addressing claims of fuel losses by service station operators."
However, this was based on adding temp compensation equipment to the price of each fuel bowser, which at the time cost around $2000 US to add to each fuel bowser. (A fuel bowser typically costs around $10000-20000 each), and based on the price of petrol in 1996 terms.
Given the dramatic increases in the cost of fuel, AND the newer (cheaper) technology available in fuel metering -- we might see this whole situation be reviewed in Australia, especially if this lawsuit grows legs and takes off in the US.
As it stands, petrol stations and fuel deliveries in Oz are already heavily regulated to take temperature into account whenever fuel is loaded from a road tanker into a petrol station tank
Disclaimer: My major customer is an Australian linux-loving company that makes fuel bowsers and all the electro-techno stuff that connects to them. IF a new law was introduced here that suddenly demanded Temp Compensation inside each fuel bowser, then we would all become insanely rich overnight, at the expense of the average joe consumer who would pay WAY MORE at the pump
I think that Alaska and Hawaii have regulations in place that require temp compensation metering devices in fuel bowsers though.
Hello!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Hey people... we're talking THE OIL COMPANIES... YES?!!!
I mean this isn't brain surgery... these are the same folks that just this year charged U.S. Citizens record gasoline prices nation wide, even though global pressure was actually down, price per barrel was down, and surplus stocks of gasoline were heading for a high (i.e. Their not even bothering to make excuses any more... they're just gonna charge us whatever they bloody well feel like... screw supply and demand and if you don't like it their good buddy the President will try to ramrod another bill through DC giving them another 20 or 30 billion more of your tax dollars for an encore!)
It's like getting pissed off at your rude neighbor because his dog uses your yard as a toilet. You have two choices. You can fume in impotent rage, obsessed by your neighbors lack of consideration and responsibility... or you can call animal control, and quietly laugh to yourself as your neighbor has to put a sizey chunk of change down to cover Spot's neutering, immunization, and getting sprung from animal sing sing. Your choice, your problem or theirs. Notice which one makes a difference.
Oil companies are a business. Make it really expensive for them to be cheesey, politico buying, scum sucking, dirty rotten, cheating pigs, and they'll stop. No profit. As long as we in this country worship at the altar of the almighty dollar, and sell our government to the highest bidder, expect no different. Again, your choice... always has been, always will be.
Like is said... not brain surgery.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the only way to go about making any radical changes at this point is to physically drag out the entire ruling elite and their political dogs and hang them. This tends to lead to decade or more of civil war and strife, and people hate that. It's so uncomfortable. So things have to get really bad b
Who should be asking, "How high?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry about the movie spoiler. Or not.
Shhhh! Don't tell the oil companies... (Score:5, Funny)
Please, we like it that way!!!!!
As a Former Service Station Owner... (Score:5, Informative)
Steve
As some who used to sell software to retailers . . (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . I can tell you that the c-stores are much more interested in making sure they don't run out of gas. Fuel and cigarettes have become commoditized to such a point that retailers can't grow their business with the stuff anymore and are actually expanding through things like newer, larger store formats and food service programs. I never heard anyone making a big deal out of temperature fluctuations -- the retailers certainly don't gain / lose significant amounts of money because of it.
They are, however, very concerned with having a tank run out -- meaning they can't sell any gas, period. Typically, they already have in-tank sensors for fuel levels, even on moldy old pre-IP equipment. I was onsite at an install last December at a rather large store and this happened for about 15 minutes -- the forecourt controller went down and had to be rebooted -- and *everyone* in the store dropped what they were doing and attended to the problem. The retailers' margins are razor-thin with fuel so they have to make money by selling a ton of it -- and they can't do that when they don't have any or when the dispenser-related equipment is down.
Simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe people think this will make a diff (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to make $500k to stay in business.
I want to make $100k more to keep me working in the business (since that gives me $80k take home). Say that works out to
Now you change the law- make me install new sensors- etc. etc.
I'm still going to want $80k take home pay. I still have to make $500k to keep the business going. Who is going to pay for the sensors, installation, and monitoring? Me? The oil company? No.
Of course-- you are going to pay for installing the sensors, installation, and monitoring. So the price is going to be more accurate- but it is going to be higher.
It's part of the reason cars that are $10,000 in some countries are $23,000 here. A long series of "well this is only $200 so we should require it" laws has grossly inflated our car prices. It inflates our labor costs too.
So you can be over charged and pay $1.08 for $1.00 of gas and spend $525 a year on gas or you can be accurately charged for the gass and spend $535 a year on gas.
Your call. People should let this particular issue go in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
estimated difference of $0.06/gallon, which is about $0.70 per fill for me, and since i need to fuel my car about every other week, about $19.60/year, which is roughly 1 hour of work at my current wage.
Re: (Score:2)
You communist!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right that this reduces the range of your vehicle and causes you to hit the gas station more often, but it also makes driving more expensive overall. At $3 a gallon, it costs $30 to fill up your 10-gallon tank each time, no matter how dense the gas is. If it's 1% less dense than it should be, then you're sp
Buy by electrical potential difference (Score:3, Funny)