My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil

[gagners]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Gagners:

I think to some degree, you have been drinking the Kool-Aid. Not surprising given the amount of propoganda you are subjected to in your area.

I understand where you are coming from, in both of your posts sir, but I still have to say that drilling in ANWR does nothing but serve the short interest greed of the oil industry. Sorry, that's the way I see it. Throw a year's worth of oil at the American public, which they don't have to buy from anyone, to slightly lower (if at all) the cost of gas at the pump. Sounds like a fatter margin to me.

GM is investing billions into the Volt. It'll be a concept for a few more years, then maybe we'll see something real. I hope it's sooner than later.

Li-Ion has the power and storage to propel the Tesla at supercar speeds for over 220 miles (teslamotors.com). The batteries are there and, with the advent of large-format Li-ion, it'll only get better.

And I was being sarcastic about the 100mpg carb. Although I still say that, even if there was one, we wouldn't necessarily have it.

As far as nuclear waste, my concern is this: as more of our power needs are shifted to nuclear, we get into a cycle: there will be more demands on the plants = more plants = more available power = lower prices = more use (more waste) = more demand = more plants etc... The amount of waste produced will increase on an exponential level (as oil usage did when OPEC cut costs three decades ago). If it's cheap, we'll just use more. Secure storage is great, yet finite. eventually, we will outgrow our storage capacity. Space to store it, therefore, will be what is at a premium.

And yessir, I've been sippin' from the old VT fountain for hippies... It's hard not to (reminder: find out how COL Jack manages...), but I think we both, in fairness, are getting fed the propaganda lines from both sides and the truth/answer/whatever is somewhere in between.

[gagners]

Originally Posted by Dad

Listened to an interesting interview several months ago with a reporter who covers the auto industry, who has written a book or two about it. I apologize, I can't remember her name. She made the assertion that in actuality, the auto industry detests big oil because so much of what they do is restricted by big oil. Don't know if it is true but it is an interesting thought. Lends credence to the idea that if there was a 100 mpg carbeurator out there they would LOVE to put it on cars to stick it to big oil. As to ethanol, it is, I think, a very viable industry, but not from corn. Sugar cane and certain grasses which can be grown on land not currently being farmed look good. Also, algae seems to have great potential, especially when coupled with coal fired electric generation. Algae removes 85% of the CO2 which it uses to generate ethanol. Some people believe such a process could generate electriciy free. There are some patents in the pipeline for such a process right now.

Problem with ethanol (I know, gagners dislikes a "green" technology!!! Oh the horrors!!!) is that it is fairly inefficient compared to gas. Not to mention extremely expensive to produce now - with the shift to producing ethanol, the price of corn has gone up via demand, since we're still using it as a food (silly us). Ethanol companies are going under rapidly.

Also, if we were to switch to massive ethanol production, we would be growing corn (using current, viable model) over much of the country. As our need for fuels increases, where do we plant more corn? I'm talking about distant future, of course, but I feel the need to project things out. We get to a point where we can't physically produce anymore and we are either importing

1) our fuel (again) or
2) our food (worse)

[Pete]

Originally Posted by gagners

I...As far as nuclear waste, my concern is this: as more of our power needs are shifted to nuclear, we get into a cycle: there will be more demands on the plants = more plants = more available power = lower prices = more use (more waste) = more demand = more plants etc... .

My wife likes to keep the A/C set on 75 in the summer. Waste to one is comfort to another.

I want to drive my 4x4 to the range on Saturday its my business not some tree huggers.

The tone of your posts comes out as someone who would be more that happy to tell others what they should be doing. And that is just what libs want to do - tell us how we should be living.

Smoking - trans fats - oil - guns and on and on and on. They know what is best for us. Are you one of them?

[gagners]

Originally Posted by Pete

Are you one of them?

No, I'm sure not. I have concerns that there will be a storage crisis in the future if we switch over to nuclear lock-stock-and barrel. Not sure how that translates in telling you what to do?

And, I also believe, personally, that drilling in ANWR is more about corporate profits than helping the little guy at the pump.

My opinion that we should seek alternatives is no different than someone's opinion to drill in ANWR immediately or run their A/C @ 75. They're opinions, hopefully informed ones. Neither one is telling the other person how they should live. You can be sure that if I were rich, I wouldn't be worried about the price of gas or my heating bill or the gas mileage of my car. But I'm not. My opinions are formed b/c these issues affect me greatly.

If I'm coming off as liberal, I'll apologize, I guess. Last I knew, differing opinions led to better decisions via discussion and debate. Didn't mean to offend.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by gagners

....Not sure how that translates in telling you what to do?.....

Read you post again - the part I quoted.

That reads to be against something because if you do it they will use more, needing more, requiring more. So to stop it we make them do with less.

Energy should be an "all fronts" battle but far too many want the fight to be someplace else.

LIBs are the biggest hipocrits - IE Teddy and the Wind Farm "NIMBY" - AlGore jetting to a Global Warming conference in a private jet - Anti Gun Libs with armed body guards.

Now I'll tell you I drive a Ford Focus for work. It's a cheep car, gets good gas MPG, I can drive it into the ground and throw it away after 6 years. It costs me gas and routine maintenance. Show me an elec/bat/hyb car that costs the same to buy and run for 6 years and I'd be one of the first to switch.

I ain't rich and I don't have time to be stuck in the middle of nowhere because my battery ran down or the sun went behind a cloud.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by gagners

As far as nuclear waste, my concern is this: as more of our power needs are shifted to nuclear, we get into a cycle: there will be more demands on the plants = more plants = more available power = lower prices = more use (more waste) = more demand = more plants etc... The amount of waste produced will increase on an exponential level (as oil usage did when OPEC cut costs three decades ago). If it's cheap, we'll just use more. Secure storage is great, yet finite. eventually, we will outgrow our storage capacity. Space to store it, therefore, will be what is at a premium.

Probably true. In essence, what you're saying is that nuclear plants support continued exponential growth.

However, our global economy is based on precisely that. Organizations - whether oil companies or charities - depend on it. One need look no further than a price-earnings ratio to see investor expectations of future earnings growth. Likewise, we see the same pattern in China; a large population with many still quite poor looks at the relative affluence of a few, and has aspirations.

This is where the issue of oil, whether foreign or domestic, becomes problematic. Consumption tends to keep going up, tracking exponential growth in the greater economy. In fact, one researcher perceives a strong correlation between GDP and oil (Link - See page 9) The economic cost of independence may be greater than we are willing to pay. A transition to nuclear faces similar demands from exponential growth, and hence the challenges you mention.

Reducing energy demands is likely to have an adverse effect on the greater economy. One person's conservation may represent another person's job. Certain geologic realities may force us in the direction of reduced oil consumption - in which case, nuclear plants would be really nice to have. As for addressing the underlying issue of exponential growth...well, that seems to me like a grand challenge.

[Ret10Echo]

I watched the hearings from the Hill today...interesting information to take in. Couple of points: First, a personal pet-peeve....if you think that any sort of fuel that is made from something that is currently part of the food-supply-chain...I think your are nuts. The only thing "bio" that is reasonable to turn into fuel is something that I would probably just throw away or flush...

1. If the ANWR had been opened back in "The day" estimates are that it would have been just about depleted now. (Not sure of the validity of that...)

2. Real renewables (wind, tidal) tend to fit in alignment with major population areas in the U.S.

3. Vehicles other than "plug-ins" compete for a depleting resource and in many cases can not take advantage of renewables.


T. Boone made a good case, but I tell ya, the guy that followed him was in disagreement on certain points. Trying to find his name....

One thing that also bothers me is the continued idea that certain options will only last for 10 or 15 years, but will eventually run out... That gets close to whining and seems to have the "Why bother, it'll only break" attitude. For some I guess it is easy to quit before you start so you don't have to do it later... I realize that there is a lot of money at stake if you are going to switch from one to the other along the way. Apparently most things are in fact a stop-gap until a better application of the electric vehicle is developed or a true renewable bio-fuel is developed that is comparable to the efficiency of gas.

Link to the CSPAN Video Library:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...ts_id=206507-1

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Apparently most things are in fact a stop-gap until a better application of the electric vehicle is developed or a true renewable bio-fuel is developed that is comparable to the efficiency of gas.

Yes, Sir, I could not agree more.

While it's true that many approaches are temporary, the critical point is not that one should surrender - rather, we need to recognize they are temporary and plan toward a more permanent solution.

The present problems were predicted in 1952 - and we ignored the warnings. Admiral Rickover noticed the upcoming problems in 1957 - and he was, likewise ignored. (Interesting article here). So, seemingly, half a century warning is not sufficient....

We should certainly use stop-gap measures. But while we're doing that, we need to ask what happens in 20 years or so.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I think with the red ink flowing in Detroit these days, if anyone actually had a 100mpg carburetor, or a more efficient vehicle, it would be out already, cause they would sell (and license) millions of them and make a fortune.

Natural gas is also very popular as a heating fuel, so its price is higher than I would like for motor vehicle use.

TR

There is an upper limit to the level of fuel economy which is useful (to an individual consumer).
The reason for this is mathematics.

We all see the big numbers for fuel economy on some cars (45/35...woo-hoo!).
This measurement method is a marketing gimmick (big numbers look good).

A better measure than mpg would be gphm (gallons per 100 miles).

15 mpg = 6.67 gphm
25 mpg = 4 gphm
35 mpg = 2.86 gphm
100 mpg = 1 gphm

To drive 12,000 miles per year (typical):

15 mpg = 800 gallons
25 mpg = 480 gallons
35 mpg = 343 gallons
100 mpg = 120 gallons


At $4/gallon, the yearly difference between a 35 mpg car and a 100 mpg car: $892.
Given the other costs of vehicle ownership, this is not worth it for the majority of consumers.

***************************
***************************

Vehicles capable of good mileage have been around for awhile.
Emissions laws have tended to undercut efficiency.
The Chevy Sprint/Geo Metro/Chevy Metro are an example of this.

Generation I had a highly effective cylinder head design and was carbureted.

For generation II, emissions laws required fuel injection, which (for some odd reason) required a different head design.
Fuel efficiency dropped in these versions.
(except for the Xfi models, but those would have done better with the original head, too)

The OBD-II became mandatory in 1996.
This further reduced fuel efficiency in the generation III models.
(Wouldn't allow lean-burn or high combustion temperatures)

My parents owned the generation I and II models. (4dr hatches)
I own a generation III model. (2dr hatch)

Gen I: actual performance 62 mpg (hwy).
Gen II: actual performance 55 mpg (hwy).
Gen III: actual performance 49 mpg (hwy).
(My gen III can get over 55 mpg due to some goofy mods and driving techniques, but this wouldn't happen under normal circumstances)


Other attempts didn't catch on...

Bill Crower had a mileage kit for the small-block Chevy in the late 70s - early 80s.
It had domed pistons which raised the static compression ratio to around 15:1.
The camshaft timing closed the intake valve late to reduce dynamic compression.
(Atkinson cycle)
A full-size (carbureted) chevy would get 30+ mpg.

Some of the Toyota, Ford, and Chevy hybrids now use this technique.


The engines of the late '60s had excellent thermal efficiency.
A 4 cylinder Nova with a manual transmission would get superb mileage.
Eventually, various emissions requirements killed the thermal efficiency of the '60s.
(phaseout of tetra-ethyl lead, etc.)


CNG has some potential due to the anti-knock characteristics.
The higher compression ratios would lead to higher thermal efficiency than in gasoline engines.

However, emissions restrictions (IIRC -- NOx) would likely rein in combustion temperatures and limit performance.


People will buy what they will buy.
Oil will be required.

I'm all for another Project Rulison (say...in ANWR? )
--My .02

[gagners]

Originally Posted by Pete

Read you post again - the part I quoted.

That reads to be against something because if you do it they will use more, needing more, requiring more. So to stop it we make them do with less.

Energy should be an "all fronts" battle but far too many want the fight to be someplace else.

I'm sorry Pete, I think we talked past each other there. We agree. I don't want people to use less. I'm an American too. My wife drives an SUV.

I mentioned to TR a few posts ago that putting all of our energy eggs in one basket doesn't seem to be the answer - no matter the basket. They all have drawbacks or limited resources that will put us back in this same scenario in the future. With Nuclear, it's waste. With Wind, it's availability. With ethanol, it's space/efficiency. And on and on. The economic growth that I mentioned (the part you quoted) will happen, no matter the method, but with nuclear power, the waste will grow with it.

I'm merely suggesting that we should be looking to diversify our energy production. That way, we have built-in flexibility. If one is slacking or more efficient methods are discovered, we start flexing, rather than be painted into a corner via one solution.

And the LIBs ARE hypocrits, I agree. If you really want to see liberal at it's best, don't stop at the Democrats, look further and you'll find the only Socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders...

BTW - Did you see any legislators complaining about how "private security firms" do business when they were protecting them during legislative visits? Nope.

[frostfire]

Bloomberg.com, New York, 2008-07-23 Oil Falls Below $125 as U.S. Fuel Supplies Gain, Demand Drops

By Mark Shenk
July 23 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil futures fell below $125 a barrel for the first time in seven weeks after a U.S. government report showed that fuel stockpiles increased as consumption tumbled to the lowest in more than a year.
Gasoline supplies rose 2.85 million barrels last week, the Energy Department reported. Stockpiles of distillate fuel, a category that includes heating oil and diesel, climbed 2.42 million barrels. U.S. fuel demand averaged 19.9 million barrels a day, the lowest since January 2007.
"The inventory and demand numbers make it clear that demand is being affected by high prices and the weak economy," said Kyle Cooper, an analyst at IAF Advisors in Houston . "The 19.9 million barrel demand number is incredibly low and has to have the bulls worried."
Crude oil for September delivery fell $3.98, or 3.1 percent, to settle at $124.44 a barrel at 2:59 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since June 4. Futures are up 66 percent from a year ago.
"Technically, we are looking for oil to settle below $121.61 and $120.75 a barrel, which were lows before the start of summer," said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at MF Global Ltd. in New York . "If we do, you can expect the market to break down further."
Oil fell as low as $121.61 a barrel on June 5 and touched $120.75 on May 15.
Demand has dropped for three straight weeks, the Energy Department report showed. U.S. fuel consumption averaged 20.3 million barrels a day in the past four weeks, down 2.1 percent from a year earlier, the department said.

Refinery Operations

Refineries operated at 87.1 percent of capacity last week, down 2.4 percentage points from the week before, according to the department. It was the lowest utilization rate since the week ended May 9. Refineries were forecast to operate at 89.5 percent of capacity last week, unchanged from the week before, according to the median of analyst estimates in the Bloomberg survey.
Crude-oil inventories dropped 1.56 million barrels to 295.3 million. Stockpiles were forecast to decline 675,000 barrels, according to the survey results.
"Any bullish impact from the crude-oil drop has been offset by rising product inventories in the face of falling refinery utilization rates," said Bill O'Grady, director of fundamental futures research at Wachovia Securities in St. Louis . "This is another sign that demand is being hammered. You've reached a
price level where there's a demand response."
Analysts were split over whether gasoline inventories rose or fell last week, the survey showed. Distillate supplies were forecast to climb 2.5 million barrels.

Gasoline Prices

Gasoline for August delivery fell 11.26 cents, or 3.6 percent, to settle at $3.0344 a gallon in New York , the lowest close since May 2. Futures reached a record $3.631 a gallon on July 11.
Pump prices are following changes in futures. Regular gasoline, averaged nationwide, fell 1.3 cents to $4.042 a gallon, AAA, the nation's largest motorist organization, said today on its Web site. Pump prices reached a record $4.114 a gallon on July 17.
Crude oil has tumbled 16 percent from a record $147.27 a barrel on July 11, as a stronger U.S. dollar limited the appeal of commodities as a hedge against inflation and high prices cut fuel consumption. Price also fell the past two days because a hurricane moved away from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico .

Interest Rates

Oil and other commodities may drop further and the dollar increase if the Federal Reserve boosts interest rates to curb inflation. Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser today said higher mortgage costs and continued declines in house prices pose no bar to raising interest rates.
Policy makers must increase borrowing costs before inflation expectations become "unhinged," Plosser said in an interview with Bloomberg Television today.
The dollar rose 0.5 percent to 107.90 yen at 2:55 p.m. in New York, from 107.33 yesterday. It reached 107.97, the highest since June 26. The U.S. currency appreciated 0.7 percent to $1.5674 per euro, after rising to $1.5670, the strongest since July 9.
The UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index, which tracks 26 raw materials, gained 31 percent in the first half of the year as the U.S. currency retreated 8 percent. The index has fallen 8.8 percent this month as the dollar has stabilized.

Hurricane Dolly

Hurricane Dolly came ashore in southern Texas today, where coastal residents sustained their first direct hit by a hurricane in almost a decade. Dolly packed winds of 100 miles (161 kilometers) per hour as its eye hit South Padre Island , about 35 miles (50 kilometers) northeast of Brownsville , at 1 p.m. local
time, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center.
Dolly is the season's first hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, home to about a quarter of U.S. oil production. The storm has steered south of most rigs, which are off the East Texas and Louisiana shores.
Brent crude oil for September settlement dropped $4.26, or 3.3 percent, to close at $125.29 a barrel on London 's ICE Futures Europe exchange, the lowest settlement since June 4.


--With reporting by Scott Lanman and Demian McLean in Washington
and Kathleen Hays in Phildelphia. Editor: Joe Link, Theo Mullen

To contact the reporter on this story:
Mark Shenk in New York at +1-212-617-4331 or
mshenk1@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Dan Stets at +1-212-617-4403 or
dstets@bloomberg.net. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...XYs&refer=home

[GratefulCitizen]

More on fuel efficiency:

The Shell Oil test car and related conspiracies:
http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/Shell%20Opel.htm

A few years ago, there was a group of people trying to sell a device which did the fuel vaporization thing like on the test car.
They tried to sell it to the mechanic who works on our UPS trucks.
The device demonstrated significant economy gains, but it was expensive and the mechanic was suspicious about potential long-term engine damage.



There was a ridiculously inexpensive device originally developed in 1971 which supposedly improved fuel economy.

The EPA did some questionable testing and considered the device ineffective.
The original developers petitioned the EPA in 1980-81 to reconsider and were basically stonewalled.

An engineering professor from MIT verified the efficacy, as did Mexico's analog to the EPA, and a couple of Japanese sources.

Most internet sources will discredit the device as junk.
Here are the actual 182 pages of documents:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb82183567.pdf

I have one installed on my commuter.
The fuel economy is still improving. (broke the 60 mpg barrier on Thursday)
Once the economy plateaus, I'll do some careful test runs with and w/o the device.

Who knows? Maybe there is something to some of the conspiracies.