PDA

View Full Version : Price of Petrol in your country?



Harrison
12th June 2007, 13:36
The price of petrol has slowly been rising again in the UK over the past year.

After protests the average price of petrol did drop to about 0.87 per litre to begin with, but now the average is back up and the cheapest I've seen it in my area in the south of England is 0.96 this month. And some places in Cornwall were over 1 a litre!

So it would be interesting to see roughly what the price per litre is in other parts of Europe, and the rest of the world.

What makes me laugh is that in the USA they have been complaining about their petrol prices which are on average about $3 a gallon! That works out at about $0.79 a litre, or about 0.40 a litre in british pounds (US Gallon is much smaller than imperial gallon, as is the case with most things American ;)).

AlexJ
12th June 2007, 14:01
A useful tool for those that live in the UK is www.petrolprices.com where you give your postcode and it'll give you the 5 cheapest petrol outlets in your area. The website even creates a Google Map thingy showing the location of the stations. You can also have it send the details to you by email once a week.

In my area it's 94.9p for both fuels, a change as diesel has been more expensive than petrol for a while now.

Demon Cleaner
12th June 2007, 14:03
We were one of the countries where it used to be cheapest, and I guess we still are, but since 3-4 years now, the price has increased a lot here too. But it's "still" at 1.16 which is 0.77.

We have a lot of gas stations around our borders which are overfilled with foreigners coming from Belgium, France and Germany, as they have a lot higher prices.

I found a price guide for Europe at Aral, which is here (http://www.aral.de/toolserver/retaileurope/europeancountryselector.do?categoryId=4000528&contentId=58632). Just chose the country and click on the button.

Teho
12th June 2007, 16:44
I just filled up my tank with diesel this morning, at kr10.52 per litre. That's 0.87 per litre. Petrol has always been a krone or two more expensive than the diesel, but I never look at the price of that anymore anyway so can't tell what it was this morning.

Submeg
13th June 2007, 01:55
1.25 AUD so thats what? 0.53?

Harrison
13th June 2007, 09:31
So it looks like the UK is being screwed as usual then, being the most expensive anywhere!

I did a search on petrolprices.com and the cheapest could find in my area is 94.9p which is 2p a litre cheaper than my two nearest garages, but by the time I've driven to the cheaper one I would have spent more on petrol getting there.

And then we have the rise in car tax coming next year, so any car with a large engine is going to have to pay over 400 a year in car tax. It definitely isn't the answer to traffic congestion. You will just get even more people on the roads without tax or insurance than we already have (already estimated at over 10% of all cars).

AlexJ
13th June 2007, 10:00
And then we have the rise in car tax coming next year, so any car with a large engine is going to have to pay over 400 a year in car tax. It definitely isn't the answer to traffic congestion. You will just get even more people on the roads without tax or insurance than we already have (already estimated at over 10% of all cars).

The current car tax is a useless system when it comes to this environmental/congestion business because it doesn't take into account the fact that many performance cars are only used at the weekend. That's not to say I want to see PAYG road-pricing either because that system, aside from costing an absolute fortune to implement, allows the operator to track exactly where you're going (and as such see the regular trip you make to work, see which school you take your kids, see which gym you're a member of, see which sports team you support etc.) and also by timing the journey and and measuring distance it can work out your speed and bang, instant fine issued each time you exceed the limit.

The obvious answer would be to scrap the tax and add it onto the cost of fuel. I know this makes fuel even more expensive but at least it's fair depending on the miles you do and means you're not being tracked.

Saying that, I'm still quite sceptical about this whole environmental thing. There a lot of bad science being thrown about by people and people making tiny insignificant changes. There's a bloody great big ball of fire in the sky, that despite being some 90 million miles away that when it's visable makes it warm, and at night when it's not can make the temperature drop by 20 degrees C. A couple of degrees C change could easily be just the effect of the sun. That's not to say we shouldn't waste resources but when someone got all hung up over the fact I use shower gel instead of a more environmentally friendly plasticbottle-free soap bar as if I was single-handedly killing the planet, I do start to wonder what we're coming to.

Harrison
13th June 2007, 10:51
PAYG is really already in place if you consider the amount of tax we already pay on fuel, so we are already in effect paying tax on every mile we drive based on the fuel we are using.

I think the whole point of car tax has become forgotten. The original point of it was to pay for the upkeep of our roads, while at the same time being a way to register a car as being on the road and who owns it.

The government are approaching the whole problem of traffic congestion from completely the wrong direction. They are just focusing on trying to reduce the volume of traffic on the roads, as well as the types of vehicle being driven, without actually looking at why so many people are actually driving cars in the first place. The answer is a lack of decent public transport at affordable prices that is convenient to use and accessible to all, not just those living in central cities.

For city congestion, park and ride is definitely the best solution. I use this every time I got to Brighton as it saves a lot of hassle trying to park, and it gets you directly into the centre of the city without a problem. It is also inexpensive compared to parking in the actual city centre and you don't have to worry about parking tickets expiring, traffic wardens, or very expansive parking charges. In this respect introducing inner city charges for cars is a good idea as it should force most to use park and ride or public transport to get into the city centres. This is one thing I am for, as long as it is done sensibly. They do need to consider people working in a city and their need to drive into the city for work related activities. Being able to apply for a special exemption if you work in a city centre would be a good idea so that city congestion charges only force people living and working outside of the city to leave their cars outside of the city.

Stephen Coates
13th June 2007, 11:29
I can't remember how much it is here. I'll check next time I go past a petrol station.

I do wish tat they would either incres the cost of petrol by 0.1 pence or reduce the cost by 0.9 pence though.
I really don't see the point in petrol costing something like 97.9 pence per litre. Just 97 or 98 would be much better.

Harrison
13th June 2007, 12:06
That is because saying something costs 97.9p instead of 98p sounds cheaper.

Submeg
13th June 2007, 14:43
Saying that, I'm still quite sceptical about this whole environmental thing. There a lot of bad science being thrown about by people and people making tiny insignificant changes. There's a bloody great big ball of fire in the sky, that despite being some 90 million miles away that when it's visable makes it warm, and at night when it's not can make the temperature drop by 20 degrees C. A couple of degrees C change could easily be just the effect of the sun. That's not to say we shouldn't waste resources but when someone got all hung up over the fact I use shower gel instead of a more environmentally friendly plasticbottle-free soap bar as if I was single-handedly killing the planet, I do start to wonder what we're coming to.

Seriously, do not get me started. The main reason I do engineering is because I know how fcuked its going to get if we continue the way we are. Seriously, things wont be bad right now...but in the time when I am old, things will be bad. So if things arent done now, say bye bye to the human race...it will go back the the ice age. I know that that is a big overstatement, but seriously, we need to change the way things are being done...

J T
13th June 2007, 15:13
The problem is though, some people are worried more about CO2 levels than other much more serious pollutants. I don't doubt that things need to be done, we need to start taking better car of the world we live in - but need to look at the big picture. OK, so cars are quite big polluters but what about the sheer amount of toxic shit that heavy industries pollute? Building works? Needless wars? Inefficient and short sighted farming strategies?

For example What's the point in focusing on how much less CO2 is released by hybrid cars when the battery manufacturing plants are literally destroying the surrounding environment? I read a great piece in a magazine saying that we need to think about everything rather than just short-sightedly worrying about only cars and air travel.

The flip side is, you have to start somewhere and take a small step at a time though. either way, there's trouble ahead and I do worry.



:whistle:

Rather hypocritically I know, the ST (http://forum.classicamiga.com/showthread.php?t=598&highlight=focus+ST) pisses fuel away like crazy. It's not very economical (but it is quick).
Like Teho, I never really worry too much about looking at the price of fuel, it's not like I can get it much cheaper. Just fill up when I need to.

Teho
13th June 2007, 15:48
I on the other hand did buy a car with economy in mind, considering I drive quite a lot for work. Allready this year I've driven over 12.000 km work-related alone. Pays well to have a car that doesn't burn a lot of fuel then, I can tell you that!

And it seems, good for the environment too. Didn't have that in mind when I bought it though.

AlexJ
13th June 2007, 18:30
The main reason I do engineering is because I know how fcuked its going to get if we continue the way we are.

Really? It seems to me even the scientists haven't got much of a clue if you look at the difference between their best-case and worst-case scenarios.

I've always been a bit sceptical about things, and always one to question what is put in front of me especially when it's coming from the government. Global Warming has the potential to increase taxes on many commonly used things, and as such it's in the governments interest to present it as 100% fact.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should unnecessarily waste resources. I recycle things where possible, use rechargeable batteries instead of Duracells, have energy efficient lightbulbs etc. but realise that this doesn't make any detectable difference to the world's "Carbon Footprint" (the buzzword of the moment).

Going back to the 'green taxes', how come it's always a case of "increase taxes on non-energy-efficient products" rather than "reduce VAT on energy-efficient products". And more to the point, we do all these fairly pointless little changes when in fact, the govt. if they'd really wanted to do something about it could have built some renewable energy power stations rather than spending a fortune fighting a war. That would have made a noticeable difference to Britain's carbon footprint.


For example What's the point in focusing on how much less CO2 is released by hybrid cars when the battery manufacturing plants are literally destroying the surrounding environment?

And for those buying a Prius because it's more economical and therefore cheaper to run, a car magazine did a test between it and the Fiat Panda 100HP. They worked out that the Panda used 5.00 (ish, can't remember the exact figure) more fuel than the Prius over a 500 mile journey meaning to make up the difference in the cost to buy the cars the Prius would need to cover over a million miles. Such a small difference in fuel consumption is surely offset by the CO2 produced by building two engines and a battery for the car over a regular lifetime. One final interesting point, their measurements showed the Panda's computer over-estimated the MPG figure by about 2MPG the Prius' overestimated by about 6.

Submeg
13th June 2007, 23:08
Yea, there may be conflicting statements from scientists, but thats because they will get influenced by someone to tell you want they want you to hear....look at what tobacco companies did.

But like I said before, it will get worse, a lot worse, maybe not now, but it will eventually. Take for example cars. If everyone were to continue using the combustion engine, the world would be finished, not to mention the oil supply. It is being wasted by being burnt, it should really be used to make things like plastics and the like.

The use of the combustion engine must be removed. We have to start using solar and electric cars. Otherwise, it will be back to bicycles....

Harrison
14th June 2007, 00:26
It drives me mad every time I hear the term "Carbon Footprint". You cannot turn on the TV these days without it being mentioned on some children's program or the news. But the people reporting it and those they are reporting about all amount to nothing.

That the average person in this world does will make very little impact and will not change much. It is the governments and manufacturers who are the only ones who can change anything and force the general public they control to live in a greener and cleaner way.

But I cannot see that happening. The world is fuelled by greed and the two biggest economies in the world, the bloated USA and the fast growing China are not going to listen to the rest of the world while their governments and rich citizens can make a quick buck from the sale of cheaply made products created using polluting processes or through the sale of oil for petrol.

Why do you think the US and China are refusing to sign any global warming agreements with the rest of the world? Because they are the two biggest producers of CO2 emissions in the world and burn a lot more petrol than anyone else. They cannot see beyond a lose if they agreed to reduce emissions and look at alternatives to oil.