Equal Chance: Mileage Breakthrough OR Giant Scam
#101
06-30-2008, 10:13 AM
Our refineries in the US are already operating below capacity. Increasing our drilling efforts won't matter if oil companies aren't willing to refine more of it. And why should they? They have no pressure to make our lives easier (temporarily, until we use up what we've got) when they're making money hand over fist.
#102
06-30-2008, 11:14 AM
The biggest reason gas prices have gone up so drastically recently is the deregulation of the commodities market and all the money people dumped into it after real estate started going the wrong direction. Oil futures, and such.
Our refineries in the US are already operating below capacity. Increasing our drilling efforts won't matter if oil companies aren't willing to refine more of it. And why should they? They have no pressure to make our lives easier (temporarily, until we use up what we've got) when they're making money hand over fist.
Our refineries in the US are already operating below capacity. Increasing our drilling efforts won't matter if oil companies aren't willing to refine more of it. And why should they? They have no pressure to make our lives easier (temporarily, until we use up what we've got) when they're making money hand over fist.
#103
06-30-2008, 11:18 AM
Well, they can, just not immediately, and I don't think anyone currently in or seeking public office has the stomach to try what really needs to be done, because if it doesn't work, they'd end up with a boondoggle of the highest proportion.
#104
06-30-2008, 01:22 PM
The biggest reason gas prices have gone up so drastically recently is the deregulation of the commodities market and all the money people dumped into it after real estate started going the wrong direction. Oil futures, and such.
Our refineries in the US are already operating below capacity. Increasing our drilling efforts won't matter if oil companies aren't willing to refine more of it. And why should they? They have no pressure to make our lives easier (temporarily, until we use up what we've got) when they're making money hand over fist.
Our refineries in the US are already operating below capacity. Increasing our drilling efforts won't matter if oil companies aren't willing to refine more of it. And why should they? They have no pressure to make our lives easier (temporarily, until we use up what we've got) when they're making money hand over fist.
The problem is there isn't enough crude to satisfy everybody and so high bidder's get the crude. The cost of refining crude, distributing gasoline, and taxes haven't changed much in 10 years. The % profit hasn't changed either, about 4%, like most American large companies. So the increasing price of raw material, crude, is whats driving gas prices. When crude is $142 a 42 gal barrel, the 22 to 24 gallons of gasoline you refine will cost $4 or more per gal. Next year $5; and next $6.
Right now with the supply of crude as low as it is high bidder gets the crude and there are a lot of bidders. It is correct that things won't get better for the next 5 to 10 years. Once we got behind catching vup is tough. Back in 1970 the USA extracted 3 billion barrels of crude; now we don't extract 10% of that because Democrats refused to asllow further exploration, drilling, or refineries.
It is time that we punished politicians for their mismanagement or they will be encouraged to continue. And this time it is the Democratic Party that needs to be punished by refusing to vote for any this fall.
now is the time to stand for the USA, not Washington.
#105
06-30-2008, 01:35 PM
Sorry, but you're incorrect, and the EIA says so. 86.2% in April, the last month they have data for, is not "at capacity" by any stretch of the definition of the word capacity. We haven't been above 90% since last August, and haven't been above 95% since mid-2005.
#106
06-30-2008, 04:06 PM
Sorry, but you're incorrect, and the EIA says so. 86.2% in April, the last month they have data for, is not "at capacity" by any stretch of the definition of the word capacity. We haven't been above 90% since last August, and haven't been above 95% since mid-2005.
The paper efficiency is just that - on paper, based on potential paper specs on equipment without regard to matching processes, equipment, and feedstock. It is not reliable to actual capability. When you're running at 85% or more there is little if any more throughput to be gained.
When the process changes for recipes to match crude input as well as maintenance and process matching cracking vs distillation vs reforming any time you get over 85% you are running flat out.
If all processes and equipment were perfectly matched to your crude you might be able to achieve 100% but in I never saw that. Nor did I see it in plastics, automotive, or other continuous processing without running overtime (which of course doesn't happen in a refinery unless there's some alternate process startup or availability.).
I state again: the problem not primarily refining capacity but availability of crude.
The low availability of crude is the reason for high crude - and gas prices.
However, if we had the crude we need the refineries then would be the bottleneck - and why congressional refusal to allow new refineries is almost as bad as refusals of exploration and extraction. Now that we have gotten into this bind (which was aided and abeted by offshore purchases of material) we are stuck with it for the next five to ten years. And the real question is: Are we going to punish the politicians who allowed it to happen in the face of industries, including me, who warned this was coming. If John MCain doesn't drive that point down Democrats throats he deserves to lose.
Last edited by mahout; 06-30-2008 at 04:17 PM.
#107
06-30-2008, 04:16 PM
To punish those responsible, even if the problem is as simple as you make it out to be (and I'm still not convinced, because of what I said about the commodities market), we'd pretty much have to blow up the whole Capitol building and start from scratch. Neither side of the aisle is blameless in this issue, trust me.
Better than trying to lower the price of crude would be to try to move beyond it sooner rather than later, don't you think? Let's put our energy there, pun not at all intended, and see what happens. Crude isn't going to be an economical choice for the long term.
Better than trying to lower the price of crude would be to try to move beyond it sooner rather than later, don't you think? Let's put our energy there, pun not at all intended, and see what happens. Crude isn't going to be an economical choice for the long term.
#108
06-30-2008, 04:36 PM
To punish those responsible, even if the problem is as simple as you make it out to be (and I'm still not convinced, because of what I said about the commodities market), we'd pretty much have to blow up the whole Capitol building and start from scratch. Neither side of the aisle is blameless in this issue, trust me.
Better than trying to lower the price of crude would be to try to move beyond it sooner rather than later, don't you think? Let's put our energy there, pun not at all intended, and see what happens. Crude isn't going to be an economical choice for the long term.
Better than trying to lower the price of crude would be to try to move beyond it sooner rather than later, don't you think? Let's put our energy there, pun not at all intended, and see what happens. Crude isn't going to be an economical choice for the long term.
But unfotunately I don't see alternate solutions that will matter in a reasonable period of time, too. Even if we were able to only sell plug-in hybrids beginning now it would be nearly 10 years before the demand would drop significantly, given we have 240 million vehicles on the road now. Its a good thing we have a lot of spare capacity in electrical power stations from midnite to dawn. That at least favors plug-in hybrids. Well, small hybrids. But who knows, somewhere in a basement, garage, or dorm room somebody may discover the efficient solar cell ("Solar Path", by Werner Begman at Amazon)... We converted a Geo Metro to battey aided with 4 12 v batteries in parallel driving a motor in place where a/c would have gone. Added 50% to the mpg. A solar driven motor mighht be the ticket. Thats where the 300 million dollar prize ought to be, not on batteries.
I think its going to come down to a race between gas prices or rationing to get us from year 5 to 10 from now. And that gives us about 5 years to suffer while we get rid of all those dinosaur SUV's etc and get prepared. At least the steel in those SUV's can be recycled.
Good posting with you.
cheers.
#109
07-01-2008, 08:33 AM
I'd rather not make this a political pissing match. For every example you cite, someone else could cite something on the other side of the aisle. It won't be me, because this is neither the time nor the place for a discussion like that, and it's probably against forum rules, to boot; either way, what's done is done and people need to focus on fixing the long-term problem, not the short-term pain in the wallet. Concentrating too much on the price of gasoline will mean possibly not spending enough time looking at the big picture. Not to mention we'll still need that oil for other things like plastics and the manufacture of medicine. We could really be screwed if we don't figure ways around that.
What do you think of intermediate steps between the ridiculous gas-guzzlers we tend to drive now and plug-in hybrids? All liquid-fuel engines (or hybrid), but much more energy efficient?
Say, the Hypercar. Extremely lightweight, but strong because of composite materials, with a hybrid engine stuck in it. Or the Loremo, an all-gas car whose light weight and aerodynamics mean over 100 mpg in normal driving conditions.
What do you think of intermediate steps between the ridiculous gas-guzzlers we tend to drive now and plug-in hybrids? All liquid-fuel engines (or hybrid), but much more energy efficient?
Say, the Hypercar. Extremely lightweight, but strong because of composite materials, with a hybrid engine stuck in it. Or the Loremo, an all-gas car whose light weight and aerodynamics mean over 100 mpg in normal driving conditions.
#110
07-01-2008, 09:36 AM
Or the Loremo, an all-gas car whose light weight and aerodynamics mean over 100 mpg in normal driving conditions.
That car seems pretty cool! The GT model has a 50hp 2cylinder turbo diesel for 20k euros. 0-60 in 10s with a 125 top speed and 80mpg.
Expensive but still pretty cool.
As I work in the composites industry, we're starting to look at automotive as a potential market, but with much less seriousness compared to the aircraft or wind power market.
#111
07-01-2008, 09:49 AM
The problem with composites in cars doesn't seem to be with practicality or safety, but with money. The big manufacturers spent lots of money making their steel mass-production process as streamlined as possible. Carbon fiber would throw a huge monkey wrench--and lots more money--into that. Change is bad.
What they apparently either don't realize or don't care about is that if they were the first to come to market with an affordable car with a structure made mostly of composites, they'd make a metric buttload of money from them.
What they apparently either don't realize or don't care about is that if they were the first to come to market with an affordable car with a structure made mostly of composites, they'd make a metric buttload of money from them.
#112
07-01-2008, 09:57 AM
The problem with composites in cars doesn't seem to be with practicality or safety, but with money. The big manufacturers spent lots of money making their steel mass-production process as streamlined as possible. Carbon fiber would throw a huge monkey wrench--and lots more money--into that. Change is bad.
What they apparently either don't realize or don't care about is that if they were the first to come to market with an affordable car with a structure made mostly of composites, they'd make a metric buttload of money from them.
What they apparently either don't realize or don't care about is that if they were the first to come to market with an affordable car with a structure made mostly of composites, they'd make a metric buttload of money from them.
not to mention price although I expect that to come down in the years ahead with Boeing's 787 and Airbus' A350/a380.
#113
07-01-2008, 02:14 PM
I'd rather not make this a political pissing match. either way, what's done is done and people need to focus on fixing the long-term problem, not the short-term pain in the wallet. Concentrating too much on the price of gasoline will mean possibly not spending enough time looking at the big picture.
What do you think of intermediate steps between the ridiculous gas-guzzlers we tend to drive now and plug-in hybrids? All liquid-fuel engines (or hybrid), but much more energy efficient?
Sorry but this is exactly the time for politics. There is no fix.
The Democrats got us into this energy crisis and if they aren't made to pay for their ineptitude they will make it worse on us. The USA has no energy plan because the attempts to establish one by exploration, extraction, and refining were squashed by Democrats and a few Republicans. Those politicians must be held accountable.
We are on the verge of a deep depression because our economy depends on energy without steep increases in cost.. As the credit card bills start to show up in people's mailboxes there will be a severe retraction in consumer spending. And a similar one in the products which we work to make or sell. And the jobs that go with them.
The latest sales data from Detroit is now predicting a 12.5 MM sales year. If that happens the US will be in a depression by the end of the year.
Intermediate steps? There are only 2: the next 5 years where people will have to learn to just get by on what they have now. After that the 5 to 10 year period will be where people take advantage of what fuel savings there are, things like plug-in hybrids and smaller vehicles. And that will be just to keep gasoline in the $6 range.
Say, the Hypercar. Extremely lightweight, but strong because of composite materials, with a hybrid engine stuck in it. Or the Loremo, an all-gas car whose light weight and aerodynamics mean over 100 mpg in normal driving conditions.
What do you think of intermediate steps between the ridiculous gas-guzzlers we tend to drive now and plug-in hybrids? All liquid-fuel engines (or hybrid), but much more energy efficient?
Sorry but this is exactly the time for politics. There is no fix.
The Democrats got us into this energy crisis and if they aren't made to pay for their ineptitude they will make it worse on us. The USA has no energy plan because the attempts to establish one by exploration, extraction, and refining were squashed by Democrats and a few Republicans. Those politicians must be held accountable.
We are on the verge of a deep depression because our economy depends on energy without steep increases in cost.. As the credit card bills start to show up in people's mailboxes there will be a severe retraction in consumer spending. And a similar one in the products which we work to make or sell. And the jobs that go with them.
The latest sales data from Detroit is now predicting a 12.5 MM sales year. If that happens the US will be in a depression by the end of the year.
Intermediate steps? There are only 2: the next 5 years where people will have to learn to just get by on what they have now. After that the 5 to 10 year period will be where people take advantage of what fuel savings there are, things like plug-in hybrids and smaller vehicles. And that will be just to keep gasoline in the $6 range.
Say, the Hypercar. Extremely lightweight, but strong because of composite materials, with a hybrid engine stuck in it. Or the Loremo, an all-gas car whose light weight and aerodynamics mean over 100 mpg in normal driving conditions.
I'm old enough to remember how quickly this country reacted to Pearl Harbor. Within months we were off and running. This country now won't even get preparing environmental impact statments by 2010.
I'm sorry to be so pessimisstic but thats an honest assessment.Gobernment will feed itself but won't work for us unless we threaten them. And too many are like you. We don't have to do anything and it'll be OK. No, it won't.
Last edited by mahout; 07-01-2008 at 02:17 PM.
#114
07-01-2008, 02:23 PM
1. Aero and weight combinations can make 100-mpg cars. It's been done. They're just not on the mass market (yet). Go to the website I linked in my last post.
2. You don't know what I have or have not done.
3. I think it's time for me to back slowly away from this discussion. It was going well, but I don't want to get involved in a debate like this in my first week on the forums. If you want, you can feel you've won as a result of my bowing out.
2. You don't know what I have or have not done.
3. I think it's time for me to back slowly away from this discussion. It was going well, but I don't want to get involved in a debate like this in my first week on the forums. If you want, you can feel you've won as a result of my bowing out.
#115
07-01-2008, 02:24 PM
The car mentioned combines lightweight and low power diesel. It's available in a 2 cylinder 20HP turbo diesel and a "GT" model with a 3 cyclinder 50HP turbo diesel. With a Cd of .2 and a 0-60 (in the 20HP model) of 20s, I have no doubt in my mind that car can get over 100mpg.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
