The fuel cost differences between Calif and the rest of the USA is in the reformulated gasoline that is necessary there due to the tough emmission restrictions. Extra gasoline processing is necessary inorder to minimize smog/emmissions in that state. If we lessen the emmissions restraints maybe gasoline will be cheaper to produce. Why do we need to clean up the air and China for example does not? Globally gasoline is higher for tax reasons to support their government agendas.

 

Read the book House of Bush/House of Saud and you'll see why it won't get any better.

 

A person could get depressed to death reading this stuff. I am older then almost everyone there is so maybe some folks don't know but,
Back in the '50's (1950's not 1850's) when I was in high school, gas was selling for 25 cents a gallon. Cheap right? Wrong! a good hourly wage at that time was $1.00 an hour. Figure it out. Gas would have to be at least $2.50 to $3.00 a gallon to be equally costly. We seemed to live through it ok then.
There have been some cycles in the not to distant past with lots of gloom and doom you'd a thought the sky was coming down. "The world is running out of oil." "It will all be gone by the year 2000." and some believed it. It didn't happen. We can conserve, cut down on some of our driving for "fun". And
Our politicians ALL OF THEM could start to earn some of their pay and benifits.
Start by cutting aid to countries who are over charging us for oil. I do not believe there is a shortage only underproduction in order to raise prices.
Twist the arms of those Opecers, conserve, and we can live fine on $3.00 a gal if we have to. And it won't go any higher.

 

I agree 100%

 

Peak oil theory, look this up on search engines. A good website is:

www.endofsuburbia.com

by the way hydrogen will never work as an energy source because it is an energy carrier...if you examine the net energy gained from hydrogen you have a net loss. It takes more energy to make then what you get out
ethanol is not toally viable either, to supply enough liquid fuel to supply the US at our current consumption rate the whole country would be planted in corn and it would still not be enough to meet our growing demand. At this point ethanol production is a completely subsidized energy source.

Our whole economy is based on oil. The time it takes to implement most anything is on the order of decades most governments are reactionary and will not do anything until the EDITED hits the dried up oil puddle.

Look at natural gas it peaked in the 70's and now we see the prices increase every year. many of our electric power plants are driven by natural gas. If one reviews production of NG it has steadily fallen. What happens when demand increases and the resource dwindles...prices go up and up.

As prices for liquid fuels go up the value of our rigs will go down and down...who can affford them.

Suburbia is based on driving because of decentralized living. everyone gets in the car to go to grocery store go to work etc etc etc.

Well i will conclude we are facing an phenomenal change in our lives, if not ours definitely our childrens.

When you leave the room turn off the lights

Rob

 

Ethanol exists for political reasons only. It's as much an energy negative as anything ever could be. It exists only to sway votes at election time. Whats worse - ethanol production requires using a needed food staple to manufacture. Energy negative or not - hydrogen is the only option which makes sense - did you not check out the links I posted? We can make hydrogen in our vehicle fuel tanks. It's simply a matter of adding a catalyst of some sort to salt water. So charge everyone 35.00 for each tank dose - this way the government still sees some sort of fuel taxes.

I see no downside to this.

Oh and thanks for reminding me R1ZOOM....What kind of friggen statement was that Spongule? As if I was insinuating as you suggest - pffttt. Whether you like it or not - bio diesel can only be used to supplement petrol - not replace it. When hydrogen takes over (and it will) bio diesel can still be used to supplement it as well - but it will never serve as a complete replacement fuel - you could never make enough.

 

Lots of conflicting info (opinions?) in this forum. Who is right.? I've been told that ethanol IS economically feasable to produce with improvements in the process and those who claim not are relying on old data.

Some say Hydogen like ethanol just won't work. Some say it will. What's the truth?

 

"We can make hydrogen in our vehicle fuel tanks. It's simply a matter of adding a catalyst of some sort to salt water. "

Sorry but that catalyst does not exist. If it did the refineries would be using it. Refineries need much hydrogen in order to remove the nitrogen and sulfurous hydrocarbon compounds before the gasoline process stage. Sour crude oil (defined by the amount of sulfur present in the crude-sweet crude in contrast has very little sulfur) needs H2 to react with the sulfur/nitrogen to make SWEET gasoline. If not the catalyst in the converter (to remove hydrocarbons or uncombusted fuel) would be history. S and N will poison the expensive nobel (Platinum, Pt) catalyst and then it will need to be replaced. As far as tar sands oil in Canada, you need deeper refining on the front end in order to eventually make gasoline suitable for your vehicle. These front end unit operations cost $$$ and because of the finite amount of tar sands oil, it simply "ain't" worth the investment.

Now the most common way to make hydrogen (excluding what is made in the refining operations as a by product) is to react steam with methane (CH4) to produce hydrogen and this requires a lot of heat energy. Guess where the heat energy comes from- you guessed it by firing oil in the furnaces. Besides the fixed capital investment and the utilities, it becomes an expensive operation. So don't think you can just add a "magical" catalyst to sea water and get free or low cost hydrogen. It's just science fiction. Many refineries choose to buy hydrogen to supplement their requirements. As a result there are companies in the hydrogen business that produce hydrogen from methane. But guess what the methane isn't cheap nor is the expense of producing steam! Believe me there have been many brain storming methods in refining engineering offices in attempts to produce hydrogen cheaply.

Oh by the way forget electrolysis (2H2O + energy>>>2H2 + O2). You need gobs of energy and capital to effect this and it's not practical as an alternative. It's like "p...ing" into the ocean. It won't ever get noticed. Until there is a viable energy alternative to gasoline, get used to paying $3.20 per gallon or more in the USA.

 

Someday maybe electric powered cars and trucks. Generate electricity with nuclear (send the waste to a distant star) or coal. If they can burn the coal cleanly enough so the fumes don't kill everyone. Or generate by ocean wave power, sun power,wind power. Seems to me electric vehicles will figure somhow in our future. Then the problem is the expensive batteries that need to be replaced. Maybe some day we won't need the batteries but run down the road with a contact rod under(or over) the Super Duty something like the old street cars.We need some huge technological breakthroughs.

 

Returning from a race in Baja Saturday I bought Diesel at 4.910 Pesos a liter. With the exchange rate and converting to gallons, it works out to be $1.73 a gallon. Needless to say, I filled the empty VP Race Fuel drum that I was bringing back home. Hauling the race truck, spares and fuel (around 9000 lbs) I averaged 8.86 MPG with a lot of steep grades in both directions. The truck pulled awesome!<O</O

 

i think we will have a tolal recession if it goes above 3 dollars,you might not have to worry about getting anywere,it will all be closed!!anyway when i voted for bush in the first election i was mistaken that a president and vice president whom headed up oil companies would be able to fix these problems,you know what thought got ya!!

 

Why don't we import that stuff from Mexico? Might be a good business, we have free trade right? Take a big tanker go get some bring it back to USA, empty and go get some more.

 

The hydrogen idea seems much more feasable. I like the idea of continueing with internal combustion engines. I dont want a fuel cell, or electric car. They are just not a viable alternative. And whoever said heat generated from internal comustion engines is causing global warming, needs to get their head out of the sand. The tar sands are NOT goin to only last for another 2-3 yrs. That's just crazy.

 

Not to mention Canada's (I'm Canadian) MASSIVE supply of oil as well, we have a surpluss, but our prices have to be kept in check with the rest of the western world, which is horrible, as we should be enjoying a much lower price of fuel due to the surpluss in supply. The sad thing is that between the US and Canada, we have more than enough oil to sustain ourselves completely independant of the middle east, but it is due to trade and costs that we don't. If we were to rely soley upon and explore more of our own supplies and "shock" the middle east with a massive decrease in oil purchasing, I'm sure things would change quite quickly. China should start looking for their own oil, we have. Buying from the middle east is a CHOICE for us....perhaps we should explore the alternative venue.

 

Yes, very good. That makes a lot of sense. Too much sense the people in power won't go for it.