Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on April 07, 2005, 08:12:51 PM
-
So I was filled up my Explorer this afternoon and made a comment about them having the cheapest gas in the county at $2.17 a gallon. The owner (a friend of mine) told me to enjoy it while it lasts. His supplier told him this afternoon the price will be $3.75 by Labor Day. :(
(http://www.dmoma.org/lobby/exhibitions/presidentially_speaking/images/napoleon_bushaparte.jpeg)
-
Well it's time to finish fixing the old motorcycle....At least the 2 gallons that I put in it will last almost 2 weeks...really this is nothing but a greed issue and not so much a suplly and demand issue..."they" are intentionally lowering the supply to raise prices...like oil barons aren't rich enough.
GAS Price Watch (http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgas_index.asp)
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
...really this is nothing but a greed issue and not so much a suplly and demand issue..."they" are intentionally lowering the supply to raise prices...
Bingo.
-
anyone care to have that alternative energy discussion now?
:cool:
-
Well..considering Im in the business....(Pipeline) to be exact....the demand over this winter and spring has been unreal....the refinery where Im from is a major contributor for gas, diesel and jet sales....they cant make it fast enough...usually they can hold storage and sell to the needy (aka areas most in demand) but streaming sales as its produced is unreal...
At times we run out....shut down (pipeline, not production) for 12 hours....then start moving it again.....
Ive heard $3 easily over the summer.....
So If I aint getting any days off to see my kid or enjoy my time off, just to keep things flowing smoothly...KEEP filling up that HEMI and keep filling up that EXCURSION....Cuz YOU WILL PAY MY OVERTIME TO KEEP YOUR SMILING LITTLE FACES HAPPY ON THE ROAD...
:rofl :aok
you know I love you guys...just thought I would fill you in!!!!:eek:
-
for gas to get to 3.75 a barrel of oil would have to hit a 100 a barrel, not going to happen. Three thing running up prices. Far east consumption, hedge speculators, and the lack of Refinery's in our country, the US hasn't built a new major refinery since the 1970's.
-
Originally posted by doobs
for gas to get to 3.75 a barrel of oil would have to hit a 100 a barrel, not going to happen. Three thing running up prices. Far east consumption, hedge speculators, and the lack of Refinery's in our country, the US hasn't built a new major refinery since the 1970's.
What of those three things is going to change between now and $100 a barrel?
-
"anyone care to have that alternative energy discussion now?"
Hybrid
Hydrogen
Biodiesel
Fuel cell heaven?
Even this guy can see the need
(http://www.3nw.com/energy/image17.jpg)
-
You keep thinking and talking about end results Sky/88, but the cost to get there would end up costing more than the gasoline is and the side effects could be far worse.
It continues to be the problem with alternative fuels.
Hydrogen will work,..until the first accident where a car explodes. Then every lawyer in the country will be all over it. They are already salivating to get their grubby little paws on a case like that. Investors would be idiots to put money into it.
I am all for alternate fuels, but the reality is, it ain't gonna happen. Talk about it until you are blue in the face. It simply will not be done.
Which puzzles me as to why you two keep wanting to even discuss it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You keep thinking and talking about end results Sky/88, but the cost to get there would end up costing more than the gasoline is and the side effects could be far worse.
It continues to be the problem with alternative fuels.
Hydrogen will work,..until the first accident where a car explodes. Then every lawyer in the country will be all over it. They are already salivating to get their grubby little paws on a case like that. Investors would be idiots to put money into it.
I am all for alternate fuels, but the reality is, it ain't gonna happen. Talk about it until you are blue in the face. It simply will not be done.
Which puzzles me as to why you two keep wanting to even discuss it.
that is exactly right. hydrogen is only viable if we first shoot all the lawyers.
-
Conventionally powered cars can burn and explode in accidents, what is the difference?
I also wonder about the strength of the container necessary to keep the hydrogen under enough pressure while it is carried around in the vehicle. It is going to have to be inherently so strong just to accomplish its function, would the kinetic energy of an auto accident really be severe enough to cause explosive failure?
I'm more of the mind of 'where there is a will there's a way'. Perhaps a solution as simple as no-lawsuit clauses in the purchase agreements of hydrogen vehicles would suffice?
-
yes the exploding pintos, seen any lately? the problem is what you said
first is the volume of hydrogen required. second is how to transport it safely under great pressure.
-
Woah... hold on there.
It is on the radar outside the US. I have a Hydrogen Filling Station that just went up less than 2 miles from my house. It's part of a pilot program here in Japan. The cars will be along shortly here. While many people are just moaning about the future, there are consortiums here actually building and trying to prove and improve the technology.
We've come along way since the TRS-80, but we had to build PC hardware to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Where would we be if we didn't build for the last 20 years? You have to admit that these last few decades moved pretty fast, Skuzzy?
As a matter of fact, I'm going to visit some of the people next week at the organization building these about doing an article for some of my clients and perhaps a few Engineering journals.
I'll post a photo some time next week...
--------
Oh, and by the way... the US will be at ~$10/gal by 2012 or so. And no one is slowing down production and there is no need for any more refineries in the US. You only build refineries when and where you have the crude supply. There are no hidden, secret, untapped wells or new large sources in continental US, so don't worry about refineries. One reason refineries haven't been built since the 1970's is that the US reached its peak production in 1970 and has been on the back side of the supply since then.
----
And... LPG seems like a pretty scary fuel also, but taxis have been running on LPG in Japan for decades without incident.
-
Originally posted by rpm
His supplier told him this afternoon the price will be $3.75 by Labor Day. :(
No.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Woah... hold on there.
It is on the radar outside the US. I have a Hydrogen Filling Station that just went up less than 2 miles from my house. It's part of a pilot program here in Japan. The cars will be along shortly here. While many people are just moaning about the future, there are consortiums here actually building and trying to prove and improve the technology.
We've come along way since the TRS-80, but we had to build PC hardware to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Where would we be if we didn't build for the last 20 years? You have to admit that these last few decades moved pretty fast, Skuzzy?
As a matter of fact, I'm going to visit some of the people next week at the organization building these about doing an article for some of my clients and perhaps a few Engineering journals.
I'll post a photo some time next week...
--------
Oh, and by the way... the US will be at ~$10/gal by 2012 or so. And no one is slowing down production and there is no need for any more refineries in the US. You only build refineries when and where you have the crude supply. There are no hidden, secret, untapped wells or new sources in continental US, so don't worry about refineries.
----
And... LPG seems like a pretty scary fuel also, but taxis have been running on LPG in Japan for decades without incident.
how efficient is hydrogen/cell technology compared to gasoline engines. IIRC the gasoline engine is 20% mechanically efficient. I was under the impression the hydrogen/cell technology has the potential of achieving 30-40% but currently it is not even as efficient as the gasoline engine. am I wrong here?
-
Originally posted by storch
how efficient is hydrogen/cell technology compared to gasoline engines. IIRC the gasoline engine is 20% mechanically efficient. I was under the impression the hydrogen/cell technology has the potential of achieving 30-40% but currently it is not even as efficient as the gasoline engine. am I wrong here?
Nope, not wrong. They're running Hydrogen powered RX-8s as prototypes. Appearently the rotory engine works well with it... but it still only makes 1/2 the power, and 1/2 the mpg of the gasoline powered versions.
As for the explosions... I'm iffy on that. I'm sure we'll overcome the problems... but there's so much KE there, if something does go wrong... it's going to be really, really bad. A typical co2 cylinder has about 800psi worth of pressure assuming normal temperatures. Knock the valve off, and they'll fly a few hundred yards before burying themselves in concrete. People can't be trusted to keep their tires inflated... do you really trust them doing 90, weaving in & out of traffic, with a 6000psi bomb in their trunk?
I'm just waiting on Toyota's new hybrid Highlander SUV. Due out around the end of the year, 60mpg, and enough room to keep doing what I want.
-
I've read that one idea is to use a chip controlled matrix of acceleration sensors (much more sophisticated than airbag sensors now) that would activate a dampened release through multiple valves.
Re efficiencies: Something is gnawing at me thinking that Toyota, in particular since they have a licensing agreement with Ballard, have something up their sleeve they're not telling. It's called chimitsu here. The stakes in this are very high and they wouldn't have built this experimental hydrogen fueling station like they did.
I'm telling you this thing looks like a regular gas station - a complete gas station, not some mockup or prototype rigged together in the back of a factory testing area. This thing is sitting right at an intersection and looks like its just itching to open the gates.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I've read that one idea is to use a chip controlled matrix of acceleration sensors (much more sophisticated than airbag sensors now) that would activate a dampened release through multiple valves.
That still wouldn't deal with a ruptured tank. When the sidewall goes... there's no valve to stop it. You could never dump enough in time to prevent decompression of the tank. A double-walled solution might work, but then it would go from expensive to insanely expensive.
Re efficiencies: Something is gnawing at me thinking that Toyota, in particular since they have a licensing agreement with Ballard, have something up their sleeve they're not telling. It's called chimitsu here. The stakes in this are very high and they wouldn't have built this experimental hydrogen fueling station like they did.
I dunno about that, but they've announced there will be a hybrid version of every car in their lineup by 2010.
I'm telling you this thing looks like a regular gas station - a complete gas station, not some mockup or prototype rigged together in the back of a factory testing area. This thing is sitting right at an intersection and looks like its just itching to open the gates.
I know several delivery companies that have converted their trucks to LPG. They keep pumps at their depot, and a handful of gas stations here in Houston also have LPG. You just have to know where they're at. There's also been talk by entire cities of switching over public transportation to LPG. Makes sense. When's the last time somebody has seen a bus getting gas at Exxon?
-
Isn't it possible to simply extract hydrogen from a water tank through electrolysis as the car drives, and keep the amount of pure hydrogen in the vehicle limited? Sounds like it would be safer to extract the hydrogen as needed, but I'm certainly unfamiliar with the process.
-
It is a hydrogen fuel filling station.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I'm more of the mind of 'where there is a will there's a way'. Perhaps a solution as simple as no-lawsuit clauses in the purchase agreements of hydrogen vehicles would suffice?
The 'no-lawsuit' thing only works for those who sign it. But what happens when a person who agrees to it runs a stop sign and nails someone who didn't sign? Can you say lawsuit? :p
Glove
-
time to buy a bike... or maybe lease a horse and buggy from the local amish community.
-
Skuzzy with all due respect you sound like someone burying their head in the sand.
Of course you may be right that at present many of these alternatives are not exactly viable. But do we just say "oh dear we can't do it at the moment so lets stop thinking about it or trying to develop it" Of course not as that would result in an end to all innovation and development of a technological nature.
Already Hybrid technology is leading to a reducction in the dependancy on Petrol. In Europe diesel technology is in many cases way ahead of petrol engine technology.
Your argument is rather "Luddite" in nature.
101 i've always said that if you have to use a petrol engine, a motorcycle is the more fuel efficient vehicle for a lone traveller as most commuters and buisiness travwellers are.So yeah go get a bike. ( Its a lot of fun too and you'll make new mates along the way.)
-
And wait until an instance of "Thermal Runaway" destroys a Ni-Cad car...Battery acid and all.
Then what?
-
If you insist on placing a tag on me for the purposes of this discussion, then call me cynical and/or realistic. I'll never get people who have to do that.
The litigous nature of our society will rear its ugly head upon the first hydrogen related death in this country. The media will be all over it.
I am all for advancements in technology. I am all for alternative energy sources. But, that does not mean diddly in the scheme of things.
I am also for honesty in politics, leaders who place the needs of the people ahead of their own, and responsibility in government. But the reality is, it ain't gonna happen.
-
(http://www.melindas.com/contests/wtawinners/warmfuzzy.jpg)
-
Originally posted by JB88
(http://www.melindas.com/contests/wtawinners/warmfuzzy.jpg)
LOl..A pix of ElphenWolf after a full moon
-
Here we go again with the "motorcycle is the more fuel efficient vehicle for a lone traveller " argument.
That might be partially true. It's not true of the larger displacement bikes, but it is true for the "little" bikes.
As far as practical... well, for the overwhelming vast majority of drivers it's ridiculous to even suggest that a bike is a more practical vehicle than a car.
Cars like a diesel Beetle carry four in comfort and have a city/highway rating of 36/42 mpg. And they carry four in comfort even when it is raining. Further, they can carry far more cargo, like luggage, store purchases, etc. than any bike without sidecar ever will.
The big cruisers available now don't get that kind of mileage. They carry two at best and only one of those in any kind of comfort. Cargo? Yah, shure. :rofl
Bikes are fun; as recreational vehicles, they are near the top.
They sure as heck are NOT the answer to the transportation requirements of the traveling public.
-
Aw come on Skuzzy mate you need a severe dose of optimism and hope there. Neccessity is the mother of invention and its getting neccessary to find alternatives. The planet needs it and economicaly we need it.
As for the cost to develop stuff I still live in hiope that some people do see and think long term and are not just full of short term money in my pocket stuff.
Toad my bike big displacement or no costs me a lot less to run than my car!
Cheaper to park ( make that free), better gas milage, cheaper road tax, ins, and quicker journey times so the engine is running less per journey than in my car. When the engine is running I'm moving unlike the car. I'm only going on personal experience here. Also a lot of the stuff I lug around in my car is junk. Travel light its the only way and a bit of rain never hurt you. Perhaps as I'm a City dweller thats why the bike makes more sense.
-
someone recently remarked that the alternative energy buisness is going to be the next dot.com boom.
i hope they are correct.
-
You could be right and I'd have no probs running my bike on some other Vroom Vroom fuel if they could do it.
-
well, its certainly interesting to think that we may actually be breaking the apathy curve on this...though it is fair to note that any changes will be painful as was demonstrated by the invention of the automated phone system.
gonna take some gettiing used to...but any advances in fuel and energy dependence will be a welcome one for me.
-
After a decade of intensive
development, the first commercial-scale waste-to-oil plant based on the Thermal Conversion Process (TCP) of Changing World Technologies is successfully processing up to 270 tons of poultry offal into 300 barrels of oil daily in Carthage, Missouri.
"Unfortunately, while the science works, political technicalities are preventing our company from meeting the demand to expand our U.S. operations," says CWT Chairman & CEO Brian Appel.
Apparently, they are saying that because they don't qualify for a .50-$1 per gallon Federal subsidy they can't compete.
It'll be interesting to see how this goes as oil prices increase.
-
How many of you guys drive SUV's? Fill up those tanks and watch how much its going to cost. Sales on SUV's are going to drop. Out here in So. Cal. we might be able to see whats ahead of us on the road with less "sky cabs" in front of us.
:)
-
Originally posted by Engine
Isn't it possible to simply extract hydrogen from a water tank through electrolysis as the car drives, and keep the amount of pure hydrogen in the vehicle limited? Sounds like it would be safer to extract the hydrogen as needed, but I'm certainly unfamiliar with the process.
the hydrogen must be forced under pressure through an anode in to a catalyst/cathode in order to create chemical electrical energy which in turn will run an electrical motor. the process is simple and can actually occur naturally in the form of electrolysis between dissimilar metals. all you need is air, water, aluminum and steel as an example and you produce electricity in minute amounts. the weaker metal is consumed (partly how make my living). the process for running an automobile (even a small one) for a useful period of time is where the technology is limited today. If they could produce a personal vehicle that can seat two run at 100-120 kph for an indefinite period it would sell well provided it had cup holders. :D
-
"" alternatives are not exactly viable""
we have city buses running on CNG down here, i better go tell them it can't be done.
*CNG=compressed natural gas.
-
Optimism? Hope? LOL! Those two and a couple of bucks might get you a cup of coffee.
I consider it borderline delusional for anyone to think what they believe to be the right thing to will actually get done. It will only get done if there is a benefit to the politicians. Either more votes, or more money in thier pockets.
You can take all your idealistic wishes and flush them, for all the good they will do. As long the limosines who drive the politicians and rich around have gas, nothing will change.
If anyone jumps on that bandwagon, you can bet there is an alternative reason why they are doing so.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Toad my bike big displacement or no costs me a lot less to run than my car!
[/b]
Feel the need to change your argument then? I'm not suprised. What you said was:
Skydancer: a motorcycle is the more fuel efficient vehicle for a lone traveller
Clearly, that is not true for the large displacement bikes.
The rest of your "new" argument doesn't change the fact that a bike is a "reasonable" choice for only a very small, limited segment of the traveling public.
Overall, a car is by FAR the more practical vehicle AND (if one chooses correctly) many cars are by FAR more fuel efficient.
Considering that the fuel efficient cars can carry four instead of just two (at best), the choice is a no-brainer.
-
Originally posted by storch
that is exactly right. hydrogen is only viable if we first shoot all the lawyers.
I'm down for that. *hands Storch one my Glocks*
-
Originally posted by BTAirsol
How many of you guys drive SUV's? Fill up those tanks and watch how much its going to cost. Sales on SUV's are going to drop. Out here in So. Cal. we might be able to see whats ahead of us on the road with less "sky cabs" in front of us.
:)
I drive about 200 miles per day in my toyota tacoma. that equates to a fill'r up daily for all practical purposes. a typical fill up for me is 12 gals roughly $30.00 a day. an SUV fill up has to be about $70.00 per tank now. with roughly the same autonomy as I enjoy. makes you think twice. still the economy is booming there's lots of money on the streets here so, ehhh who cares, for now. :D
-
Oh, and before you start thinking you're the only one with 'cycle experience, I currently own 50% of this one
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1112978648_sabre.jpg)
and, in my youth, started with a Yamaha 100, sold it and moved up to a Bridgestone 200cc street/off road, sold that for a 350 Honda, sold that for a 650 BSA Lightning, added a 125cc Kawasaki motocrosser and later sold the Lightning for a Kawasaki Mach III. Sold both Kaws when I went to pilot training.
The Sabre was just a whim; threw in half on it when my son wanted to buy it. I ride when I feel like it... because, after all, it's just not that practical for daily transportation needs but it's a fun recreational vehicle.
As just about everyone realizes.
-
Originally posted by BTAirsol
How many of you guys drive SUV's? Fill up those tanks and watch how much its going to cost. Sales on SUV's are going to drop. Out here in So. Cal. we might be able to see whats ahead of us on the road with less "sky cabs" in front of us.
:)
2004 Ford Explorer, Amsoil treatment, and a K&N, I'm averaging about 26mpg on the highway which is 11 points higher than the "EPA avg.".
Motorcyles are NOT the answer. Come to Michigan, it snows 4 months out of the year and, you won't get 1 mile on one. Shove your crotch rocket Triumph where the sun doesn't shine, it is NOT the answer for "Public Mass Transportation. Get off your high horse already. Al Gore said "that the Internal Combustion Engine" was the worst invention. I find it funny he rode in Airliners. Why? Hypocrasy. Now go get your shine box!
For those of you arguing about Hydrogen, do any of you remember the Hindenburg footage? (Skuzzy, Rolex and Toad. It is directed at the two amigos that post each others egos on my ignore list).
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, and before you start thinking you're the only one with 'cycle experience, I currently own 50% of this one
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1112978648_sabre.jpg)
and, in my youth, started with a Yamaha 100, sold it and moved up to a Bridgestone 200cc street/off road, sold that for a 350 Honda, sold that for a 650 BSA Lightning, added a 125cc Kawasaki motocrosser and later sold the Lightning for a Kawasaki Mach III. Sold both Kaws when I went to pilot training.
The Sabre was just a whim; threw in half on it when my son wanted to buy it. I ride when I feel like it... because, after all, it's just not that practical for daily transportation needs but it's a fun recreational vehicle.
As just about everyone realizes.
Nice.
-
Originally posted by storch
I drive about 200 miles per day in my toyota tacoma. that equates to a fill'r up daily for all practical purposes. a typical fill up for me is 12 gals roughly $30.00 a day. an SUV fill up has to be about $70.00 per tank now. with roughly the same autonomy as I enjoy. makes you think twice. still the economy is booming there's lots of money on the streets here so, ehhh who cares, for now. :D
Not quite. My 4Runner is the exact same platform as your Tacoma. I fill up about 13.5 gallons weekly, costs me about $28 on average. People tend to just label SUV's as gas guzzlers, when most are not. I drove a Sequioa for a few weeks, and it wasn't that bad. Cost me about $40/week for a much bigger vehicle with a V8. You really gotta get to the H2s or Excursions for it to become a gas guzzler, and those are the minority on the road... or those monstrous dualies driven by little guys that are staring out through the steering wheel... those crack me up :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Apparently, they are saying that because they don't qualify for a .50-$1 per gallon Federal subsidy they can't compete.
It'll be interesting to see how this goes as oil prices increase.
Toad can you post a link for that?
-
Originally posted by storch
that is exactly right. hydrogen is only viable if we first shoot all the lawyers.
Where do I sign up? To shoot the lawyers anyhow. I wouldn't mind hydrogen IF it were available so you could go somewhere. Of course my Volvo is a diesel anyhow so I can't use it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, and before you start thinking you're the only one with 'cycle experience, I currently own 50% of this one
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1112978648_sabre.jpg)
I've got your bike's handy-capable little brother sitting in my garage... even down to the flames.... :aok
(http://www.trdparts.com/Eve/chopper.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
2004 Ford Explorer, Amsoil treatment, and a K&N,
[/b]
Please explain. My bride is driving an '02 and it doesn't get near that mileage. She has the V8; is your's a 6?
What is the "amsoil treatment" exactly? Engine and trans?
K&N I know; did you happen to do it stage by stage and keep mpg records? Or did you do both at once? In other words, how much do you think the K&N alone is worth?
Overall, how much did you increase the mpg with these two changes?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Optimism? Hope? LOL! Those two and a couple of bucks might get you a cup of coffee.
I consider it borderline delusional for anyone to think what they believe to be the right thing to will actually get done. It will only get done if there is a benefit to the politicians. Either more votes, or more money in thier pockets.
You can take all your idealistic wishes and flush them, for all the good they will do. As long the limosines who drive the politicians and rich around have gas, nothing will change.
If anyone jumps on that bandwagon, you can bet there is an alternative reason why they are doing so.
You hit the nail on the head there Skuzzy.
We have a viable alternative to Middle East oil now, its called Changing World Technologies. Not sure why they arent doing better than they are. Maybe Toad can shed some light on that.
I agree with the dangers associated with hydrogen cars, first explosion and hydrogen powered cars are history here in the US.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Toad can you post a link for that?
Yah, shure! You know my reputation!
Changing World Technologies Calls for Expanded Biomass Energy Tax Credit (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050407/nyth157.html?.v=3)
-
Nice bike there toad.. But as sky's sentence went I believe it will still hold true unless Im not certain what you mean by larger engines..
I've had 600 and 750 cc bikes that I could get anywhere from 50-70 mpg depending on how I drove them. Sport bikes that still carry 2 but little room for luggage. It would be hard to beat those numbers with any other type single person transporataion, no?
-
Hi Guys,
Having worked in a city where people would gladly consider selling their grandmother at a discount in order to get re-elected, and knowing several pastors with congregation members on the supply side who are telling me essentially the same thing as MwXX, I am bound to ask a simple question to the conspiracy theorists.
Alright, lets assume for the sake of the argument that Michael Moore is spot on and that the oil companies own George Bush and every single Republican in elected office (with the exception of media-darling St. John McCain of course). Why would they intentionally drive oil prices through the roof when it hurts the popularity ratings of the administration more than any other single issue and would contribute to a string of electoral defeats. Surely they have a vested interest in keeping their "puppets" in power? Especially considering that anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with economics realizes that you can make more money selling a commodity for a long period of time at a moderate price than you can selling it for an excessive amount for a very short period of time?
[Additionally, they must realize that necessity is the mother of invention and ever increasing energy prices will force us to get out some of the repackaged Area 51 alien technology to power our vehicles. Unless of course they know they can always activate the implanted chips in our brains prior to the next election via a microwave transmission imbedded in the middle of Rush Limbaugh's subliminal advertizing for McDonalds? Even if the chips fail I guess they can fall back to calling on their CFR buddies to reprogram the voting machines. No wonder the space shuttle is "suddenly safe enough" to be launched again!
Which leads me to ask, do they own Hillary as well and this is part of the disinformation campaign with the houses of Bush and Clinton merely trading power while their fat cat buddies get rich? What about the Freemasons, have they lost standing with the Illuminati because of their perceived inability to control the next papal election?]
- SEAGOON
-
There is no doubt that smaller vehicles like motorcycles are more fuel efficient. The problem is practicality. Not sure many soccer moms are going to be using them to haul the kids to practice, bring home groceries, ect, ect. What we need is an overall more efficient vehicle that is practical in hauling a payload of 500 - 1000 lbs.
Not all of us live in urban areas with access to public transportation. There is a need for pickups, suv's and trucks. We need a more efficient version of these vehicles that is fueled by renewable sources. Hydrogen is one possibility, so are fuel cells.
Those talking about the catastrophic explosion of a ruptured tank in an accident are limiting their POV to using conventional high pressure tanks. A fuel cell has a very low chance of explosion. NASA has been using them for decades with a high success rate under very adverse conditions. Granted, those cells are fed from high pressure tanks, but they have no choice in space. They are forced to carry their fuel source with them.
A fuel cell operating in the atmosphere could have an device to extract oxygen, hydrogen or what ever gas is needed directly from the air. These extraction devices are not that complicated. Many senior citizens have home oxygen generators that sit next to their bed or are strapped to their wheelchair. These simply extract the needed gas from room air.
There no doubt would be needed modifications to make one suitable for a fuel cell, but the technology is here...now. As long as we make it known that we will continue to pay thru the nose for fossil fuels, those sources will continue to rake in the profit.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yah, shure! You know my reputation!
Changing World Technologies Calls for Expanded Biomass Energy Tax Credit (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050407/nyth157.html?.v=3)
Thanks Toad! :)
Imo changes need to be addressed asap. CWT could very well eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
-
Don't know Elfie. I had high hopes for these guys. However, they are clearly saying they can't make it happen unless they're subsidized.
Not exactly what you want to hear when talking about a viable "alternative" source.
The gas/alcohol industry says the same thing; can't work unless subsidized.
I was hoping CWT had a technology that could stand on its own in the marketplace. As yet, they don't talk about how much a gallon of their biodiesel REALLY costs, straight up. That's what I'd like to know.
There is the possibility that with rising oil prices it could become a stand alone technology. I think we should support them for a while but sooner or later.... a kid has to leave the nest.
-
From what I read in that link it sounds like they are having difficulty competing with other forms of bio-diesel because of the subsidies. Others get subsidies, CWT doesnt. Maybe eliminate the subsidies altogether?
I did read somewhere that CWT made improvements to their plant in Carthage to increase productivity and profits. Maybe that will help them out.
-
Can you process municipal sewage sludge?
At our pilot plant in Philadelphia, we have successfully applied our process to the waste stream processed at a major city’s bio-solids facility, pursuant to a detailed testing protocol. Discussions are currently under way to provide financing for the design, construction and deployment of a large-scale processing plant.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/information_center/faq.asp#15
They cant be doing to badly since they are trying to get another plant up and running here in the US.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You keep thinking and talking about end results Sky/88, but the cost to get there would end up costing more than the gasoline is and the side effects could be far worse.
It continues to be the problem with alternative fuels.
Not the case with biodiesel, it grows from the ground and the process is not that complicated. One thing that is not taken into consideration is the cost of securing foreign oil, and when factored in brings the cost of that gallon of gas alot higher.
-
"There is no doubt that smaller vehicles like motorcycles are more fuel efficient. The problem is practicality. Not sure many soccer moms are going to be using them to haul the kids to practice, bring home groceries, ect, ect. What we need is an overall more efficient vehicle that is practical in hauling a payload of 500 - 1000 lbs. "
But how many of these big vehicles do you see every day with only one occupant?
If all those people in SUVs cars etc driving on the highway on their own converted to smaller cars or motorcycles the impact on polution and fuel use would be huge.
How many single guys or girls still drive great gas guzzlers when they have no kids no family to lug about. I see em all the time. Its just plain daft. Sitting on their own in vehicles burning lots of fuel yet carrying nothing but the driver and a briefcase, or bag.
Of course its up to you but I know which mode of transport I'd rather drive/ride. Its a kick looking in the windows of the bored stationary fed up masses as they burn fuel whilst going nowhere every single day I ride to work, whilst i whizz by in comfort and having a ball.
I do agree that fuel efficiency or alternatives need to be developed for the Mum market too though.
I think its whats called a combined approach.
-
"There is no doubt that smaller vehicles like motorcycles are more fuel efficient. The problem is practicality. Not sure many soccer moms are going to be using them to haul the kids to practice, bring home groceries, ect, ect. What we need is an overall more efficient vehicle that is practical in hauling a payload of 500 - 1000 lbs. "
you cant do that with a regular car?
-
Of course you can but it aint big and flash and it doesn't shout "look at me!"
Personaly I think big vehicles "shout look at me ...... aint I dumb!"
:lol
-
I agree to a point Skydancer. There is little need for an SUV for most of the people, in most places. They are more Egowagon than anything else. There is, however, a need for SUV's.
Not everyone lives in Metro, USA. Some live in rural areas and need that SUV to travel in all weather conditions. There also is no mass transit for most of those people to use for the daily commute to work.
It will take something as drastic as gas rationing to force the switch to more appropriate vehicles and mass transit use.
-
He lives in a place were 650 miles will take you from one end of the island to the other (Aberdeen to Plymouth).
He lives in a place where one of our Ford Explorers would be one of the bigger 4wd vehicles.
He lives in a place with a lot more public transportation between towns.
He has NEVER loaded up five guys and five dogs with five shotguns and 7 days worth of clothing and food into one vehicle and driven 6 hours to go on a pheasant hunting trip.
Yet he knows all about whether or not anyone needs a large SUV.
He knows it all, just ask him.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Please explain. My bride is driving an '02 and it doesn't get near that mileage. She has the V8; is your's a 6?
What is the "amsoil treatment" exactly? Engine and trans?
K&N I know; did you happen to do it stage by stage and keep mpg records? Or did you do both at once? In other words, how much do you think the K&N alone is worth?
Overall, how much did you increase the mpg with these two changes? [/B]
Toad, I have the 4.0L and I use 0W-30 Amsoil Oil. If you have leaks, don't use it. It's 0W allows WAY LESS friction.
I only have a K&N panel filter. I rarely "jack-rabbit" and go easy on the freeway. I have been thinking of getting THE Filtercharger kit though and Cat-Back exhaust.
Karaya
-
So Toad, you have nothing as a nation to learn from others?
HMMMMM!
No I have not done those things. Neither Have I said that you should ban SUV's. What I am saying is that to use them as your everyday transport to and from the mall, work, etc is stupid. They are inefficient and are helping to make this whole planet go down the pan.
I'm not saying don't use them. I'm saying find better ways to power them, and only use them when they are neccesary.
That is all.
As an aside. I passed three V8 Range Rovers in traffic yesterday sitting still each with only one occupant. Two of who were obviously livid and late and blocked my bike (or attempted to ) from passing like it would make any difference to them.
I cruised past. Warm in my goretex, enjoying the ride and arrived at work relaxed and happy whereas they burnt wasted fuel, raised their bloodpressure by a couple of notches, stressed themselves at the start of the day, and for what? So they could have a big flash Range Rover that realy said look at me I'm a sad prat!
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
So Toad, you have nothing as a nation to learn from others?
HMMMMM!
No I have not done those things. Neither Have I said that you should ban SUV's. What I am saying is that to use them as your everyday transport to and from the mall, work, etc is stupid. They are inefficient and are helping to make this whole planet go down the pan.
I'm not saying don't use them. I'm saying find better ways to power them, and only use them when they are neccesary.
That is all.
As an aside. I passed three V8 Range Rovers in traffic yesterday sitting still each with only one occupant. Two of who were obviously livid and late and blocked my bike (or attempted to ) from passing like it would make any difference to them.
I cruised past. Warm in my goretex, enjoying the ride and arrived at work relaxed and happy whereas they burnt wasted fuel, raised their bloodpressure by a couple of notches, stressed themselves at the start of the day, and for what? So they could have a big flash Range Rover that realy said look at me I'm a sad prat!
1)Its ok if you cant afford a Range Rover or even the gas that goes in one. you dont have to be mad at those that do. Hater.
2)If your so happy why you worried about anyone else?
3)How many girls can you fit on that bike? 1? maybe two at the most? maybe thats your problem. Get you a ride that can fit a few ladies.
-
A bit more news on the technology of hydrogen power and dangers of carrying hydrogen on board in a high-psi fuel tank:
Apparently there is a group making progress in pelletizing hydrogen as sodium hydride pellets, which release hydrogen in the presence of water. The pellets exist at room temperature and normal atm pressure:
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/FCTFiles/FCTArticleFiles/Article_394_Powerball-Zeus.pdf (http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/FCTFiles/FCTArticleFiles/Article_394_Powerball-Zeus.pdf)
Pretty good example of making progress by thinking outside the box, I say.
-
dude... you are not thinking again... most "sport bikes" won't get 30 mpg with two people on em. a lot of cars will get 30-40 mpg with 4 people in em.
even my lincoln town car gets 23 mpg with 5 or six people in it... you would really have to get puny to beat that kind of milage on any motorcycle.
Harleys get about 44 mpg... most sprot bikes less... even an old r75 beemer only gets about 45mpg (I know.. I have one) and they all get a whole lot less if ridden in a way that won't get you run over.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
So Toad, you have nothing as a nation to learn from others?
[/b]
No, we can learn lots from others.
It's hard to learn from someone that has no clue what he's talking about.
Large vehicles have their uses. It'd be nice if everyone could have a garage full of vehicles that served particular needs. One could pick and choose as from a collection of shoes which to use each day according to the task at hand.
Unfortunately, most folks don't have that luxury. They choose the vehicle that is a compromise but still allows them to do the things that are important to them.
Your smug "bike" attitude further highlights your arrogance. It's a good solution for you so you promote it as THE solution.
We'd all love to see you come live in Minneapolis for a year and ride your bike throughout the winter.
There'd be a stupid prat, I think.
-
No I'd use it as often as possible to keep my transport cost down and go to four when I absolutely needed to.
Which does not include every single day to and from work in the city.
Read a little more carefully Toad man. You might see I'm not quite so dumb. You have a tendency to selectively quote the bits that support your attack ( sorry argument )
No worries though.
By the way I don't hate realy. I rarely use that word as you may notice!
-
Just a few small points:
for those of you who who believe that hydrogen cars would be too dangerous...
1. Gasoline is tremendously volatile and vapors are extremely flammable and or explosive. It is not a safe thing, and yet society accepts the risk. Hydrogen can be contained with proper engineering. The shuttle uses hydrogen successfully.
For those who think Hydrogen is the answer:
2. Hydrogen is not a source for power. It is a storage medium. For every Calorie of hydrogen 'burned' in a vehicle, a slightly larger amount of energy must be used in the hydrogen's production. That energy comes from the present sources. Hydrogen solves nothing if we do not produce it with alternate energy.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dude... you are not thinking again... most "sport bikes" won't get 30 mpg with two people on em. a lot of cars will get 30-40 mpg with 4 people in em.
even my lincoln town car gets 23 mpg with 5 or six people in it... you would really have to get puny to beat that kind of milage on any motorcycle.
Harleys get about 44 mpg... most sprot bikes less... even an old r75 beemer only gets about 45mpg (I know.. I have one) and they all get a whole lot less if ridden in a way that won't get you run over.
lazs
he said and I said single person transport.....
-
single person transport? again... who will ride the things and maintain em? I know the only time I want to ride is when the weather is between 65 and 90 degrees out... I see these guys wearing enough gear to do a bio spill riding in the rain (maybe one for every hundred or two huindred cars) and they are flat misserable. Most of em are rare if they get much more than a 500lb payload... the rider and some poor sucker who is having his/her life risked by the thoughtless rider... that is about it for "payload" you can balance a bag of groceries or a sixpack on your lap on the way home I guess. The lousy milage they get isn't near enough to make up for the maintenance and useless in most weather factor... Not to mention the strain on our health care system... How much fuel does a life flight helicopter or ambulance burn?
conserve? yeah... that's a great plan... let's put off a real solution by "conserving" so that we all suffer for longer.
use the crap up and let's get on with it. you guys that are conserving... that is fine if it is just to save some money but you are roadblocks to progress.
lazs
-
You are a bit soft aren't you?;)
scared to ride in the rain?
-
scared? sheesh... I rode for 30 years year round on a Harley. I bet I put more miles on in a year than you have in your career. riding in the rain is misserable... your whole country is a misserable wet mess 90% of the time. To equate any riding of mortorcycles with the word comfort is laughable. the guy in the range rover was comfortble... He probly didn't like the traffic but he could say.. "at least I'm not that guy" when he seen you go by.
motorcycles are a toy.. spending 10 minutes suiting up for a 5 minute ride is laughable. Putting on a sweat smelling helmet that blocks more sight and sound than the worst case of car with tinted windows is laughable.
Motorcyles should be reserved for a nice helmetless ride on a nice day in the country or a day all suited up at the track or dirt.
lazs
-
:rofl
Yep you probably have done sunny rides and more of them.
You have 8 years on me I've been riding 22 years. But as I ride most of the year round and accross Europe once or twice a year too maybe our mileage is similar. Also I have about 100 litres of luggage space on my bike if I fit the touring kit so the argument about luggage space don't wash. Besides the guy in the range rover didn't look too happy when I passed him.
I don't mind the wet the cold or wearing appropriate gear for the conditions. The benefits far outweigh those hassles. As for your commentsabout the health care burden etc and the danger, well thats another rather unsound argument! If you were that worried about it you wouldn't ride would you?
Over here we call you guys "fair weather sunny sunday riders" usualy a term of disdain from real bikers who get out there and ride!
Now how about your comments on my homeland. I happen to think the US is a great place governed by an idiot. That seems to have earned me the idiot term "amerihater" now look at the garbage you type about Britain and ask yourself does that make you a "Britophobe"
:rofl :rofl Sheesh ( as you say )
-
if you want to get all bundled up and have "100 liters of luggage space" why even have a bike. just get in the car and turn on the heater... you can see better and hear better and don't have to smell a sweat soaked helmet.
Yes... I am a fair weather rider... why not? what is the point to getting all bundled up for a 20 minute ride and then all unbundled when you get there? I have cars for bad weather and they are a blast to drive. I did my time on bikes and know a little about how "comfortable" they are. I was probly comfortable as a car passenger about 20% of the time I was on bikes and that is with weather that isn't gloomy like your country.
How do you go to the store 2 miles away in the rain? I'm allready home by the time you get on the road and not a drop on me.
motorcycles are toys. don't kid yourself.
as for your country.... at least I've been there. you have never been here. you don't know what lifestyle drives us to vote the oppossite of what you would... I have seen your country and understand somewhat, why you vote in such a womanly manner... that doesn't mean I would like to live their... just the opposite.. it (england) is probly in the bottom 10 of countries I would like to live. course.... I haven't seen all that many.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1)Its ok if you cant afford a Range Rover or even the gas that goes in one. you dont have to be mad at those that do. Hater.
Chris were you sticking up for me and my Range Rover? Thanks man. Beer is on me. I never get stares in Atlanta driving it around. Not with all the MILFs driving around in hugeass UAVs (Urban Assault Vehicle) around here.
-
riding moto's in anything but nice weathe ris crap..and hell..i only have afew thousand miles of street ridiing..
but crappy weather is crapopuy on a moto...You can not logically argue otherwise..
-
Lazs don't you read to well? I allready told you in another post I lived in US for four months when I was 19 working with underprivelidged kids on a summer camp project. I subsequently travelled a bit there too, mainly eastern side, New England. I then went to Canada to visit relatives.
Then in 98 I took my ex on a tour of the mid west South Dakota, The badlands, Wyoming, Kansas etc. stopped off at the Sturgis Rally. Funny how all these badass dudes trailer their bikes there and then toddle up and down posing whilst they have all those fantastic twisty roads in the black hills to explore. So I have been there. liked it too. Saw some pretty crappy weather and met some great people. So you are wrong me old matey.
By the way are you realy such a Misoganist ( think thats how you spell it ) That you think female equals negative?
As for bikes, modern gear is lightweight well made and warm. So good and comfortable I wear it off the bike too. Maybe my tolernce to cold is greater than yours. But to pop to the shop I shrug on a Jacket pull on my lid and go. Takes me about the same time as getting the car out , and then trying to find somewhere to park the other end. On the bike I just pull up jump off buy my bits and go quick smart. The Only time I use the car is when my dog travels too, I have realy big loads to carry or the weather is realy unridable. Rare in our gulf stream warmed country.