Author Topic: !#$% at the Pump (Read 3617 times)

Goth · « **Reply #60 on:** March 23, 2005, 09:18:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Momus--
Strange that as a nation that ostensibly takes pride in its efficiency and productivity, the US has seemingly so far failed to embrace fuel efficiency in automobiles.

Time to join the 21st century guys.

I don't think it's necessarily the fact that we have failed to adopt, but rather it's the fact that we do not want to generally adopt. While I agree, fuel efficiency is an issue and there will probably be an overhaul like in the late '70s and early '80s on american made autos, you will find that americans are luxury driven no matter the costs.

We work hard for efficiency and productivity, and we play hard. So while we are in the forefront of creating technological advances, we drive our dinosaur SUV's and sporty cars. We are arrogant spendthrifts. God bless us, everyone.

JB88 · « **Reply #61 on:** March 23, 2005, 09:21:20 AM »

two words. metric system.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #62 on:** March 23, 2005, 09:42:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
Jackal1 are you realy that foolish that you want to be beholden to Arab oil producing nations, poisoning the atmosphere, and paying a fortune in taxes for ever and ever amen?

If the money and time spent on developing oil burning technology was put into the alternatives we'd have fuel cell vehicles with thousands of miles range. I'm pretty sure of that. Why hasn't it happened? because Oil barons company execs have a vested interest in us buying their product lining their already too fat pockets and we are too bloody enslaved to oil to be able to do anything about it. Apart from maybe those clever guys working on fuel cells with a fraction of the resources that Oil companies seem to have.

Besides its not my fault you live in a ridiculously underpopulated country that is way too big for your needs! 100 mile range is ok for a commuter bike here. And if you read the article range can be increased by adding more cells.

Do you have any idea exactly what you are whining about now?

I noticed even though you addressed me , you still managed to get your anti U.S. crap in. Getting sorta hilarious. The jealousy and the text tantrums. Man it must suck for you to want to be here so bad and to be stuck where you are.

The alternate power source you are referring to has been examined, tested, tryed to be improved on and found to defeat it`s very own purpose by producing more waste at a higher overall cost.

bunch · « **Reply #63 on:** March 23, 2005, 10:10:29 AM »

Its odd too, how deisel is now pricier than gas. Used to be the other way around, no?

Elfie · « **Reply #64 on:** March 23, 2005, 10:26:34 AM »

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

http://www.changingworldtech.com/

That's the answer imo. Get these plants up and running across America and we wont need to import oil anymore. Then China and Europe can pay the Arabs outrageous prices.

*edit* CWT is getting the financing together to build a plant in Philadelphia to process the cities sewage. The plant in Carthage Missouri is undergoing some changes to improve productivity and profits. When those changes are done they will be the exclusive processor for the Butterball turkey plant. The Carthage plant will be capable of 500 barrels of oil a day when that happens.

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #65 on:** March 23, 2005, 10:37:24 AM »

Toyota has a hybrid car that gets 60/ gallon

john9001 · « **Reply #66 on:** March 23, 2005, 11:42:11 AM »

honda accord hybrid puts out more power and gets better MPG than the all gas accord, the writing is on the wall.

Skydancer · « **Reply #67 on:** March 23, 2005, 12:14:13 PM »

Jackal1

You're a rude aggressive bugger aren't you?

Since Fuel cells only produce water as a by product pray tell me how that is more polluting than the crap the petrol engine pours out.

And go learn what a whine is! This is a discussion board. That means discussing things, sharing points of view etc. If disagreeing with your constant redneck twaddle is whining then I'll whine and whine and whine, and I'm damn glad about it.

(are you stalking me? You don't seem to be able to let a single one of my posts go unanswered?)

:aok

Seagoon · « **Reply #68 on:** March 23, 2005, 12:17:55 PM »

Actually we have two problems at present, neither are related to the amount of available crude oil:

1) WORLD demand continues to increase with no end in sight. China currently uses almost as much oil as the USA and analysts expect them to outstrip US consumption in the near future. They also don't have much in the way of environmental controls or conservation laws to restrain them. Since price is a function of demand, and the international demand base is widening, the OPEC countries are going to be under less and less political pressure to lower prices, so $2.00 a gallon is probably going to become a baseline.

2) The US problem is going to get worse, as was mentioned, unless we get serious about refining. Even with the most rapid implementation of "alternative energy" possible, we will still have an increasing demand for petrochemical products, including heating oil, natural gas, Kerosene. Want to really lower the cost of business and travel? Build some more danged refineries that are both close to transport and centers of production. We are currently almost at crisis level in that respect.

- SEAGOON

Skuzzy · « **Reply #69 on:** March 23, 2005, 12:21:48 PM »

SkyD, you ever look at what it takes to manufacture hydogen fuel cells? It ain't pretty.

The great ethenol debacle comes to mind. A fuel that burns cleaner than gas, is derived from organics grown right here in the good ole U.S.A., but uses more fuel to produce and distribute than what wouldb e reclaimed in the process of using it.

Skydancer · « **Reply #70 on:** March 23, 2005, 12:32:57 PM »

Skuzzy.

Maybe you are right. I guess I'm only saying what I've read on the subject. Whatever the case we have a long way to go. But insisting that petroil/oil powered vehicles are the only option seems a bit daft. I do think that vehicle manufacturers are kind of in the thrall of the power of the oil companies. Until the oil companies stranglehold is broken research into alternatives will always be underfunded.

JB88 · « **Reply #71 on:** March 23, 2005, 12:33:08 PM »

true skuzzy...but wouldnt you agree that
it's costs are prohibitive in much the same way as any emerging technology?

how much did computers used to cost relative to todays standards? how many things did they have to iron out before they could really get it rolling into an innovation surge?

i guess what i am saying is...the problems with oil are relatively appearant...and though not easilly solved, doesnt it make practical sense that we put our best foot forward to innovating and enginering an entirely new state of energy production? (not only for the sake of reducing dependence, but also for the purpose of creating a new economy?)

we are after all, americans...we DID invent the internet.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #72 on:** March 23, 2005, 01:03:48 PM »

Are we talking about ethenol? Or hydrogen fuel cells?

Note, I have never said a word about continued reliance on oil as the primary base for motive power being the best option.

I consider myself to be realistic and probably a bit pessimistic about the fuel thing. You guys can talk until you are blue in the face and nothing is going to change.
It will not change until there is no more oil left.

But, alternate fuel sources which require more energy to get to the consumer than they actually produce is silly and would be financially devastating.
Or if the by-products of manufacturing those alternatives produce more pollutants (and posiibly more hazardous pollutants) than they save, it is also silly.

EDIT: As far as cost to produce an alternate form of energy, I could card less. Unfortunately, it is not simply a cost issue.

JB88 · « **Reply #73 on:** March 23, 2005, 01:18:18 PM »

i think we have all talked ourselves silly long ago...

agreed on all points for the most part. the only difference being that my only real hope is that the conversations, wherever they may be, might lead to a light clicking on somewhere.

something tells me that the answer to the problem is one of those overly simple "why the hell did'nt i think of that" solutions.

it cost a whole lot of money to split the atom...has cost billions to develop it and place in warheads that have never been used...

something tells me that we can wrap our heads around this one. it's just a shame (IMHO) that it has to take the brink of darkness or a war of foreign aggression or another repeat of the 70's gas fiasco for people to see the inevitable end and fix it.

ya know?

Charon · « **Reply #74 on:** March 23, 2005, 01:23:03 PM »

Quote

Lack of refineries. We haven't built a refinery since the 70's.
We can pump a couple billion barrels a day, it wouldn't matter we can't refine it. If you mention refinery the Sierra club chits it's self.

Actually, the oil industry "right sized" it's refining industry. If they really wanted to open new refineries they likely could without too many headaches, particularly with the current administration. It wouldn’t be easy, and EPA etc. make good scapegoats, but clear away all the EPA impediments and you would likely not see any significant increase in refining capacity. The can now hit 98 percent of peak capacity, don't have the expense of over capacity and don't worry too much about what happens when there's a disruption beyond making extra, short-term profits.

OPEC (and all of the upstream players) seems to be comfortable that the current price range will not impact demand significantly. They held to a price basket in the $20 range for a while leading up to 9/11. They have had some time to see that higher prices (where they are at today) are generally acceptable to the public, have limited impact on demand (volume) and maximize profits. So, we are now in the realm of gasoline at a base price near the $2../gal. range.

Charon