Empyrean Nikkou wrote:So it doesn't balance out. If we drive more during the warmer months of the year, then wouldn't we be buying more gas that isn't there than extra gas? I suppose it depends on where we're talking about, since some areas of the united states rarely get cold enough to have snow, but you've got to consider how irresponsible it is. The government should try to win the public some money if the same company practices temperature-controlled conditions in one country and not in ours. And the money won could be sent into the infrastructure and give people more work/jobs.
But think about why people are driving more in the summer. It's not for the sake of driving more, or because they can't during the winter, for some reason. It's because people are traveling, on vacation and such. So I don't think it's a matter of irresponsibility- or anything that the government can control.
Regardless, remember that most fuel tanks (from experience, anyways) are kept underground, to avoid any crazy exploding tanks due to overheating, so the overall temp of the fuel is kept more consistent to prevent explosions in the warmer months, or to prevent freezing in the winter months (which... I think is unlikely, but yeah). But as a liquid, the fuel's volume shouldn't change a whole lot. You can look into this, but I don't think that'd qualify has hard ball irresponsibility on the government's part as a matter of regulation or that companies are trying to shortchange people.
Now, if fuel was stored above ground, that'd be a huge safety hazard, but the whole matter of measuring fuel at a standard temp is just a matter of convention to keep things simple- if they carried out such regulations, it'd cost money, and be passed on to the customers, as per the recent measure of more fuel efficient vehicles.
Oh, and as an aside, the U.S. isn't paying NEARLY as much for fuel as Europe and other countries yet, since said countries have such huge taxes on their fuels already. If it were the same in the US, this recent fuel cost increase wouldn't be nearly as dramarific as it is right now. That and if people hadn't gotten complacent with cheap fuel and bought gas guzzling monsters. Of course you're going to complain if your big honking truck gets like 15 miles per gallon and fuel costs nearly twice that amount it did a year ago. If you just bothered to have a zippy car that got at least twice that amount per gallon, it wouldn't be close to as painful as it is for the truck drivers, anyways. So yeah, otherwise the U.S. would have more fuel efficient vehicles like other places which have had expensve fuel for ages now, but the market permitted Americans to purchase the gas guzzlers without much pain. Until now. That's Economics for you.
Right, so derailing aside.
Bio fuel is just the way to market the fuel that is 'grown' and this 'bio' rather than mined like most fuel is. It's a zing word, and if you tried to use that to describe normal fuel, people would totally just look at you like a moron and buy fuel from someone else, even if the literal use of the word is totally right.