Question for Foodies.........

it's a matter of regulation and taking appropriate steps to ensure that corporate greed doesn't compromise public safety. With that understood, it's arguable that nuclear is gentler on the earth than coal, with its fossil-fuel, acid rain and serious air-pollution problems.

Agreed! The French have an old-fashioned approach to energy - a national energy utility. Gee, no Enron creating shortages in California to pump up profits. What an idea!

Have gas prices affected our eating out? Personally, not much. They do; however, have a significant impact on our business. We used to deliver to Louisville twice a week and for brief periods, we would go to once a week (typically during the winter when demand was lower and weather played a bigger part). In September 2005 when the gas prices started climbing to the $2.80 range, we made the hard decision to increase the price of our product because all of our supplies where going up. Even though the food is produced locally, we still have to buy our supplies at various places. Our box company is in Mt. Sterling but the cost of the stock went up, thus increasing our box price. We use plastic tubing to make the bags that our oyster mushrooms grow in/on. Since plastic is a petroleum based product, that has affected the cost of plastic. In order to save on shipping cost, we have to order such a large quantity that it is difficult to plan the purchase. Now, heating costs ... we use propane and we produce year-round.

In December 2006, we again cut back to once a week deliveries to Louisville and have kept it at that ever since. During Derby, I had my truck packed all the way to the ceiling and I had 2 other passengers. The one in the back (my sister) -- I could only see her knees I was so packed. Tough but we are sticking with the once a week. We also hold our customers to a minimum order, which they all adhere to, so as to make the deliveries cost effective. Sometimes, people will ask us if we deliver to certain places (say State Parks, for example). Sadly, if they are too far off our regular delivery route and only want to take a small order, it is not feasible for us. We had a winery that was taking our product but it took 1 1/2 hours for us to deliver 11 pounds of mushrooms to one place. Difficult decisions to make ...

Robin ... how I dream of getting by with a $30 fill up and it lasting a month. Between the farm and deliveries, we are driving around 1300 miles a week between 2 vehicles. I put $70 in gas in my vehicle on Tuesday and another $50 today (the pump only allows $50 for visa debit cards at certain pumps). Because my bank charges me for excessive transactions, I let it go at $50 instead of filling up all the way. Yes, I have an SUV but it is a Trailblazer .. not huge. We need that size for our deliveries and for 4 children. Last year, my husband traded our Avalanche for a Chevy Colorado due in large part to the better gas mileage from the smaller truck. I think in 2005, we spent around $9000 for fuel for driving.


So, as for locally grown food perhaps not costing as much as other foods because of shipping costs, perhaps I have shed a bit of light on the realistics of what it takes to get locally grown food to local places.

It is a tough business and it is a business that we love. We would not do it if not for all of the support that we have had over the past few years from chefs and owners and ultimately, the consumer. So, thank you for allowing me this LONG post .... and thanks for supporting your local farmers!

I favor nuclear energy production, if and only if:

1. The federal government runs or tightly controls all facilities.
2. All facilities are heavily protected from sabotage or terrorist attacks.
3. All facilities use newer, near-foolproof technologies such as pebble bed reactors.
4. All the waste can be effectively be recycled or converted to environmentally benign substances.

I honestly think nuclear is a great option for the future, but as someone who cares about the planet, the above concerns have to be satisfied before it will receive my political support.

[Robin Garr]

I favor nuclear energy production, if and only if ... the above concerns have to be satisfied before it will receive my political support.

Comment, then, on the side conversation that Jon and I are having about nuclear power apparently being well-regulated and frankly non-controversial in Western Europe? I expect that government controls over there are a lot tighter than that imposed on Three Mile Island or Marble Hill, but I suspect on the other hand that it's not as strict as what you propose.

Should we take a page from Europe's book, or do you think they're taking too much of a risk?

I expect that government controls over there are a lot tighter than that imposed on Three Mile Island or Marble Hill, but I suspect on the other hand that it's not as strict as what you propose.

You speak as though TMI and Marble Hill (and Chernobyl, for that matter) happened yesterday. We've had almost 30 years to learn lessons from them and improve design, processes, and oversight (regulation). I am quite certain the requirements imposed by the NRC changed drastically after TMI. Also, the design and construction technology have progressed dramatically since then. I worked in nuclear plant construction quality control/assurance after the Marble Hill concrete issues were exposed, and you just would not believe the paper trail that was required to place 1 cubic yard of concrete in a sensitive area of a nuclear power plant. The chance of a repeat of some of the quality issues witnessed at MH would be reduced to just about nil. I am all for building nuclear plants, but I believe they will prove to be prohibitively expensive considering regulatory and environmental requirements - not to mention NIMBY.

Also, regarding hardening to protect from saboteurs/terrorists: The domes of the reactor buildings at Marble Hill were designed to take full impact of a 747 aircraft. The concept a plane crashing into the structure seemed so incredibly farfetched at the time - no more.

Can someone provide a source for the refineries at 50% capacity statement?

I can't give you anything firmer than I heard it on NPR sometime last week. Something about the ages of the refineries now resulting in more breakdowns -- OR if your figures are correct (probably are), maybe THEY are just claiming 50% usage to boost the prices so tha they can set new profit records in the next quarter.

Also heard on NPR today that they're opening up a new energy plant (can't remeber where, somewhere around SD I think) that will use turkey droppings. That takes care of two problems (killing two birds with one stone -- sorry, couldn't resist).

What gets me is the fact that all the stations (regardless of brand) change the prices at the same time and to the same level. The gas in their tanks that sold for $2.99 yesterday cost them the same as when it was delivered but today they're charging $3.19 because it rained on the Gulf Coast!

In my younger days, most of the stations had different prices because they based their prices on the cost of the gasoline each time it was delivered to them. Did they have "gas wars" around here like they did in Jersey? I remember 11 cents a gallon when I was a kid.]

I favor nuclear energy production, if and only if ... the above concerns have to be satisfied before it will receive my political support.

Comment, then, on the side conversation that Jon and I are having about nuclear power apparently being well-regulated and frankly non-controversial in Western Europe? I expect that government controls over there are a lot tighter than that imposed on Three Mile Island or Marble Hill, but I suspect on the other hand that it's not as strict as what you propose.

Should we take a page from Europe's book, or do you think they're taking too much of a risk?

I do indeed think they are taking too much of a risk with the older plant technologies. Of course, I'm not an expert on these things, but I think that government controls over traditional nuclear plants (bad technology, IMHO) isn't nearly as good as government controls over pebble beds technology (good technology, IMHO). I want both sides of the coin to be foolproof. I want at or near 100% certainty of no meltdowns or serious accidents.

Can someone provide a source for the refineries at 50% capacity statement?

I can't give you anything firmer than I heard it on NPR sometime last week. Something about the ages of the refineries now resulting in more breakdowns -- OR if your figures are correct (probably are), maybe THEY are just claiming 50% usage to boost the prices so tha they can set new profit records in the next quarter.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the only thing I can find on NPR is reference to a BP refinery that had a fire and was operating at half capacity. That would make more sense to me than the entire US refinery market suddenly operating at half capacity. Given the price of gasoline, if I were a gas refiner, I'd be producing everything I could until some profit equilibrium was reached (which is, I suspect, somewhere below the current price where conservation appears to be kicking in to some degree).

I heard the same NPR report last week as Vince. But, if others think that we are just making up the 50% capacity thing for some reason. Oh well.

CNN reports that refineries have recently increased capacity to close to 89% in order to slow the drastically rising cost of gasoline before the summer travel season.

This would imply that for the past several months it has been lower than 89%.

I heard the same NPR report last week as Vince. But, if others think that we are just making up the 50% capacity thing for some reason. Oh well.

CNN reports that refineries have recently increased capacity to close to 89% in order to slow the drastically rising cost of gasoline before the summer travel season.

This would imply that for the past several months it has been lower than 89%.

I had a chance to trade emails with ISI Group's Mike Rothman this morning (he is their oil analyst). His daily email to clients said this: "we note that US refinery operating rates are now above year-ago and normal levels...." "Given the frenetic reporting about unplanned refinery downtime, we suspect many would be surprised to see where operating rates stand." He expects operating rates to climb by another 800,000 to 900,000 barrels per day in the next month, about half of which will be refined into gasoline. I think that is terrific news relative to prices at the pump, although as I mentioned in an earlier post, I worry about the psychological impact of the first major hurricane that hits the Gulf (and we can all remember year-before-last's overnight run-up in gas prices as the second large hurricane even drifted toward Louisiana).

yes, they are currently at 89%. Refinery capacity now is not reflected in current prices. The prices that we have been paying are result of lower capacity of production in the past months.

I find it ironic that people complain about the price of a gallon of gas but then have no problem paying for bottled watter(Average retail price $1.00 for 12 oz), soda($1.40 for 16oz), or coffee($1.80 for 12oz). Think about how much it would cost if you bought a gallon of each of these things.

As a chef, I've seen across the board wholesale price increases of about 3 to 5% in the last couple of months. Unfortunately, I think it will worsen before it will get better. I've had no choice but to raise menu prices to reflect the current conditions.

I'm sorry if anyone interpreted my request for a source for the decrease in refining as thinking that the concept was "made up". As a scientist I just always want the data. My scientific skepticism doesn't mean I doubt anyone's veracity, just the data or its interpretation. I searched the NPR site and found a couple stories about decreased refining capacity. Here is the story I think that Ron and others heard.
Refinery Backlog Prompts Spike in Gas Prices
What it says is the refineries are operating only at 89% in April and this was the worst capacity for an April in many years. This drop to 89% from much higher levels drove the increase in gas prices over the last several months. The reason for this lower (!) capacity is a matter of opinion in the story. Industry people stated that it was due to wear and tear on the refineries, while consumer watchdogs in California were certain that it was like Enron creating an artificial shortage. I'm guessing that both are going on.

I'd like to get back to talking about olive oil.

Good idea Jon. I had no idea I would piss off so many people by repeating an article that says that prices rise when demand is static and supply decreases. The one I heard said "half of capacity", but the latest CNN article shows recent increase to 89%. Sounded like econ 101 to me, not some partisan political position.

I certainly wasn't ticked off, Ron - I just was trying to get my mind around what would happen if capacity utilization was at 50% for more than a day - I think gas would be at $8 a gallon in a heartbeat. My apologies if it felt like I was questioning you too hard.