Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
non-essential consumption will trend downward and people will really be forced to conserve/sacrifice one way or another.
Naturally. As we already know, it's inelastic in the short term, but elastic in the long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuffler
I suppose we'll see the usual bad behavior...people stealing gas from others (i.e. going around at night to siphon out gas from parked vehicles), etc.
Investing in a locking gas cap wouldn't be a bad idea. What is more bothersome is the cost of everything else going up as a result...the cost to fill up my vehicle is the least of my concerns.
All vehicles for the last 20 years have some form of anti-siphon protection. Ford, Chrysler and KIA are the best, Toyota, Honda, Volvo, Audi, and GM are virtually non-exist (ie there is a wire-mesh filter to prevent foreign objects from contaminating the gasoline -- can easily be punctured with a sharp dowel or metal rod).
Fords, Chryslers and KIAs have a valve whose primary purpose is to prevent gasoline from leaking out of the tank when the vehicle is overturned, thereby lessening, but not totally removing the possibility of explosion. The valve will work even if the fuel line is severed or the tank is punctured. Can't say that about other vehicles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828
Look, I hate oil companies, and I hate how they have held us back from alternative fuels as much as anyone (and I certainly am not a right wing, "drill baby drill" moron, either).
They haven't done squat, so don't blame them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828
What is that alternative that everyone could go to? I'm not being argumentative, I really want to know- is it electric, ethanol, or something else?
The only viable alternative is a non-combustion engine.
Electric isn't viable because you don't have $2.5 TRILLION to $3 TRILLION to upgrade your entire electrical grid, replacing the mish-mash of technology from the 1920s to the present at main-stations, sub-stations, switching stations and transformer stations with present technology, and rewire the entire grid and replace all the transformers.
Ethanol is impossible. You are limited in the amount of ethanol you can produce, and once you start producing 15 Billion gallons per year, the EPA requires that all remaining ethanol be produced from sources other than corn.
You lose.
The increased and constant demand for corn will only send food prices, including meat, poultry and dairy prices higher, and in the of cellulostic ethanol (ie made from saw grass or other high cellulose vegetation) that means food crops will be plowed under to grow non-food crops, and the price of foods goes even higher.
You might save $10/month at the pump, but you'll be spending $50/month more on food, so you suffer a net loss of $40. You're better off sticking with gasoline and learning how to live a new life-style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828
Because I keep hearing experts saying we don't really have an alternative that would work for the general public yet, and they fear we are decades out from having anything that would work and could be used in mass like oil is today.
I think natural gas might actually be your best option. The US and Canada or full of natural gas on-shore and off-shore. The problem is you lack the infrastructure. There are idiots saying hook up the gas lines now to the gas stations. You want to do that? Go ahead and make my day. I'll be laughing when you try to cough up $3000/month to heat your home with natural gas, and if not that, then you'll be paying $900 to fill your tank.
Build the infrastructure first, if you can afford it. Building additional natural gas pipelines around the US will take 7-12 years. A smart plan would build dedicated lines just to use as vehicle fuel, and keep the existing natural gas pipelines for home heating and cooking, and industrial use separate.
Of course, that also assumes you have enough money to buy a new car and fit the payments into your budget.
Will it be worth it? I don't know. Cutting gasoline consumption means cutting petro-chemical feed stocks for consumer goods. The price of consumer goods will rise. As long as you're paying significantly less for natural gas, then you can absorb the price increases on all consumer goods (about 90% of everything you see at Wall*Mart, Krogers, Meijers, Target etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm31828
I wish we could get off of oil tomorrow and would jump at an affordable alternative if it would work for everyone-- but until that time I am being realistic in that we need to explore what oil reserves we do have here in this country.
You don't have enough and you certainly don't have enough of what you need, which is light oil. No matter what, you're dependent on foreign imported oil, if not for gasoline, then for your life style. Remember, only 17 out of 49 oil refineries in the US produce gasoline. The other 32 produce "the American way of life."
Naturally. As we already know, it's inelastic in the short term, but elastic in the long term.
All vehicles for the last 20 years have some form of anti-siphon protection. Ford, Chrysler and KIA are the best, Toyota, Honda, Volvo, Audi, and GM are virtually non-exist (ie there is a wire-mesh filter to prevent foreign objects from contaminating the gasoline -- can easily be punctured with a sharp dowel or metal rod).
Fords, Chryslers and KIAs have a valve whose primary purpose is to prevent gasoline from leaking out of the tank when the vehicle is overturned, thereby lessening, but not totally removing the possibility of explosion. The valve will work even if the fuel line is severed or the tank is punctured. Can't say that about other vehicles.
They haven't done squat, so don't blame them.
The only viable alternative is a non-combustion engine.
Electric isn't viable because you don't have $2.5 TRILLION to $3 TRILLION to upgrade your entire electrical grid, replacing the mish-mash of technology from the 1920s to the present at main-stations, sub-stations, switching stations and transformer stations with present technology, and rewire the entire grid and replace all the transformers.
Ethanol is impossible. You are limited in the amount of ethanol you can produce, and once you start producing 15 Billion gallons per year, the EPA requires that all remaining ethanol be produced from sources other than corn.
You lose.
The increased and constant demand for corn will only send food prices, including meat, poultry and dairy prices higher, and in the of cellulostic ethanol (ie made from saw grass or other high cellulose vegetation) that means food crops will be plowed under to grow non-food crops, and the price of foods goes even higher.
You might save $10/month at the pump, but you'll be spending $50/month more on food, so you suffer a net loss of $40. You're better off sticking with gasoline and learning how to live a new life-style.
I think natural gas might actually be your best option. The US and Canada or full of natural gas on-shore and off-shore. The problem is you lack the infrastructure. There are idiots saying hook up the gas lines now to the gas stations. You want to do that? Go ahead and make my day. I'll be laughing when you try to cough up $3000/month to heat your home with natural gas, and if not that, then you'll be paying $900 to fill your tank.
Build the infrastructure first, if you can afford it. Building additional natural gas pipelines around the US will take 7-12 years. A smart plan would build dedicated lines just to use as vehicle fuel, and keep the existing natural gas pipelines for home heating and cooking, and industrial use separate.
Of course, that also assumes you have enough money to buy a new car and fit the payments into your budget.
Will it be worth it? I don't know. Cutting gasoline consumption means cutting petro-chemical feed stocks for consumer goods. The price of consumer goods will rise. As long as you're paying significantly less for natural gas, then you can absorb the price increases on all consumer goods (about 90% of everything you see at Wall*Mart, Krogers, Meijers, Target etc).
You don't have enough and you certainly don't have enough of what you need, which is light oil. No matter what, you're dependent on foreign imported oil, if not for gasoline, then for your life style. Remember, only 17 out of 49 oil refineries in the US produce gasoline. The other 32 produce "the American way of life."
I don't consider natural gas a viable long-term alternative. First, I think our reserves of natural gas are grossly overstated. A lot of the non-conventional production of natural gas--e.g. coalbed methane wells, etc.--tend to produce well for a relatively short time, and then production drops precipitously. Second, natural gas is going to be far more precious to conserve for those uses (like home heating) where there is no other practical fuel alternative.
The best hope, in my opinion, for augmenting US motor fuel supplies is by refining diesel fuel from coal. That technology is available and is scalable to commercially viable levels of production. The problem with it is cost--as it will be with any non-petroleum fuel alternatives--probably $6-$8 per gallon to produce in today's dollars.
Therein lies the rub with any of this--fuel is going to cost a lot more, no matter what, and America's current living arrangement can't afford that cost. So, much more efficient vehicles, much fewer vehicle miles driven, and just plain a lot fewer vehicles period is what our future holds. As I've said umpteen times, we need to be rebuilding the passenger rail system in the US, and diverting as much truck freight traffic back to rails as we possibly can. We also need to abandon the concept of auto-dependent suburbia for a living arrangement that--even if it remains somewhat dispersed like suburbia--is centered around pedestrian and mass-transit friendly transportation. That is our only long-term hope of avoiding a complete loss of a livable material standard of living in this country. It's that, or erase half the human population from the earth.
Look, I hate oil companies, and I hate how they have held us back from alternative fuels as much as anyone (and I certainly am not a right wing, "drill baby drill" moron, either). I guess I just look at it in the sense that oil prices are skyrocketing and demand is starting to meet worldwide output- and we need a solution like this as sort of a bridge to hold oil prices in check (even if they were to stay at their current high levels or a bit higher) until we can get these alternatives out there to everyone.
The production is falling very slowly -- The Real Peak Oil model, if you have seen it -- is the mirror of the same way the production came up. All very gradual.
But as far as pricing -- Look at what a couple percentage surplus did to the Oil market in late 2008. Dropped the price by a factor of three. Now in contrast -- Libya is off-line. That is only 2% of the world market and look at the run-up.
A slow overall fall in production (Again, The Real Peak Oil model) accompanied with a slow overall fall in demand, and the prices stay stable all the way down the falling production curve. Just takes some basic planning and minimal co-operation.
I really think we could do that with just a little bit of thinking ahead. Don't you? Maybe I am off-base. Are we really too stupid to do that?
Quote:
You mention that the technology already exists and we could start changing cars out now at the normal 5% per year rate. What is that alternative that everyone could go to?
I'm not being argumentative, I really want to know- is it electric, ethanol, or something else?
I would tend to envision a mix. Maybe three levels of vehicles:
1. Electric Only -- powered from a roadway based grid. Works fine for cities, cheaper than now, 100% clean. (probably 80% of cars and trucks)
2. Electric with Battery Option -- lets you head off into the deeper rural areas -- dirt roads, some off road. (maybe 10% of cars and trucks)
3. Electric with (Ethanol/Bio-Diesel) Generator on board. Good for emergency vehicles and very deep rural and way off-road. (maybe the last 10% of cars and trucks).
All of these could operate fully electric from the grid when in a city, or highway -- where most cars are most of the time. And some let you go deeper.
If the third category operated on the grid maybe half the time, totaling that up could drop our liquid fuel use to 5% of the present. We can cover that easily from home-grown sources. ZERO Oil in the mix. Very clean, cheaper than now, long lasting (electric motor life is 3 to 5 times that of an fuel engine), and 100% US sourced fuel.
Maybe think of this like Cell phones,
1. a low-cost carrier covers you for most metro and highway areas,
2. more expensive carriers let you go rural, and
3. if you want to go anywhere you pay for the expensive satellite link.
Three levels, three budgets, three level of robustness, and they tend to work fine for everyone.
We already have surplus electricity and Terrawatts of Renewable lined up and looking for work. Just switching US over would keep most Americans fully employed for some years. AND would save US money on imported Oil every step of the way.
By the time it is done -- No Oil, No Coal, and No Nukes -- but that is going to make some folks VERY unhappy.
Quote:
Because I keep hearing experts saying we don't really have an alternative that would work for the general public yet, and they fear we are decades out from having anything that would work and could be used in mass like oil is today.
Electric Cars work fine. Even a very basic internet search will bring you up thousands of examples. Starting adding Grid Power pick-up for them, and we can start losing the batteries . . . and we are on the way. Not rocket science.
Quote:
I wish we could get off of oil tomorrow and would jump at an affordable alternative if it would work for everyone-- but until that time I am being realistic in that we need to explore what oil reserves we do have here in this country.
Lot of folks get stuck on Perfection.
If "it" -- whatever it is -- is not fully perfect, fully now, it is not good enough and cannot work.
Real deal is NOTHING in life meets that Perfection Specification. However, nothing in life need meet the Perfection Specification.
It does not HAVE to work for everyone, right now. That is a Perfection Specification you are completely making up. Like I was mentioning, only a few percent a year need changed and we could back off Oil the same way we got onto it -- One drop, One barrel, One gas tank at a time.
Every Gas/Oil car that is NOT replaced with a Gas/Oil car takes US one step closer to going off Oil. However, you may have noticed THAT is Not What We Are Doing. We are trying to negotiate with the addiction.
Better Mileage -- CAFE Ratings (still using Oil)
Cash for Clunkers -- (still using Oil)
Hybrids -- (still using Oil)
Public Transportation, such as buses and car pools -- (still using Oil)
We could go on and on, but you see the pattern? Every addict goes through this. Some folks call it reducing, some call it negotiation, but if it is an addiction -- and it appears to be, the AA folks have a saying . . . .
One drink is too many, a thousand is never enough.
Just substitute out Oil for Alcohol or whatever the addiction and the model becomes very clear. And we should despair of the situation and the likely outcome if we not choose to go off Oil.
Right nw oil is being driven by alot of things to higher price than it should be. That includes demand as the world comes out of recession with china and india being the driving force;distuption in oil prodecution parts of the world;ever increasing cost to recover it as areas smaller smaller that have it and harder to extract. Demand with china and india etcs growth will steadily increase while US contributes less of demand than anytime in the past as to per cenatge of growth in demand.Still for the enrgy it produses it will be the cheapest for years to come especailly when you loo at the prodcuts gotten fro it besides fuel.
As far as Economics, you generally seem to know your stuff.
But as far as this part . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Electric isn't viable because you don't have $2.5 TRILLION to $3 TRILLION to upgrade your entire electrical grid, replacing the mish-mash of technology from the 1920s to the present at main-stations, sub-stations, switching stations and transformer stations with present technology, and rewire the entire grid and replace all the transformers.
Where do you get this from?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
