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.
That is why I believe that automobiles and trucks have no real long-term future for long-distance passenger and freight transportation in this country. We should start, like yesterday, rebuilding our rail transportation infrastructure. It is on the order of 2 to 3 times more fuel-efficient than highway transportation, and can be made even more efficient through electrification in many areas. Three quarters of a century ago, we had a rail transportation system for BOTH passenger and freight that was the envy of the world, but we essentially scrapped the passenger component of it when the auto manufacturers and oil companies convinced the political leadership of this country to totally socialize the road system upon the taxpayers--effectively subsidizing that transportation mode while leaving the private railroads to fend for themselves. We need to reverse that trend at once.
In the meantime, or--more properly--to buy us a little time, we should be actively embracing diesel automobiles in this country the way the Europeans have. A key step in that direction would be for the US to abandon its current asinine diesel emission standards, and simply adopt the European standard. If one considers the amount of pollutants that the poor efficiency of the American automobile fleet generates from well to tailpipe, the slightly higher emissions from diesel vehicles that the European standards would allow at the tailpipe would be easily be offset from emission reductions all the way through the oil production, refining, and distribution process that the increased fuel efficiency of those diesel vehicles would provide. Why our idiot politicians and the morons at EPA can't figure that out is beyond me. Adopting the European standards would allow a plethora of fuel-efficient diesel vehicles to be sold in the US--including some built by US manufacturers, but that can't be sold here--and would improve fleet fuel efficiency in the US substantially. As Mircea noted, more US crude is also suited to production of middle distillates like diesel fuel, as well. To the "hybrid-lovers," I say this: it is possible for a non-hybrid diesel engine-equipped car to achieve nearly as good urban fuel economy and as good or better highway fuel economy than a similarly-sized gasoline-hybrid car with much less mechanical and electronic complexity and at a lower vehicle purchase cost. And, a diesel-hybrid would be more efficient than a comparable gas hybrid.
So, we had better be doing the latter as a short-term fix for our festering energy problems, and we'd better be working on the former as quickly as possible for a longer-term fix. We have to do both, and we're running out of time.
Last edited by jazzlover; 05-04-2010 at 09:08 PM..
The amount of gasoline you get depends on the type of oil you're using.
The US first started refining heavy oils. Gasoline was a by-product of refining. Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO --> BP) dumped so much gasoline into the Cuyahoga River that the river used to frequently catch fire and burn.
About 20 years later, someone came up with the combustion engine married to a "car" (Ford).
So, the oil companies started selling you something they used to dump and pollute the environment with.
A 42-gallon barrel of heavy oil yields 6 gallons of gasoline.
That was fine for the first 45 years of the automobile, but by the time the 1960s rolled around, it was obvious that the US had to build more heavy oil refineries and find more heavy crude, or find an alternative fuel.
That alternative was found in foreign imported light oil from the Middle East. Better refining methods allow 26 gallons of gasoline to be extracted from a 42-gallon barrel of Kuwaiti Light, Iraqi Light, Persian Light or Arabian Light.
Beginning in the late 1960s, the oil companies began building light oil refineries to meet both the present need, and future need for gasoline supply. Those refineries were designed to handle projected capacity through the mid-1990s.
Better refining techniques also resulted in many of the heavy oil refineries being converted to handle intermediate grade crude oils, like West Texas Intermediate, which yields 19-gallons per 42-gallon barrel, and Brent Blend (an intermediate grade crude oil made by blending oils from seven different oil fields) which yields 16-gallons per 42-gallon barrel.
Environmental laws also had an impact, which made East Texas Sour too expensive to refine for gasoline, not to mention the yield is only 14-gallons per 42-gallon barrel. Most of East Texas Sour is used for feed stock and high sulfur diesels (like for APVs and other smaller engines). Low sulfur diesel usually has a green dye in it to distinguish it from high sulfur diesel.
Even with today's modern refining techniques, a barrel of heavy oil only yields a paltry 9 gallons of gasoline.
Most of the heavy oil in the US, like California Heavy and Prudhoe Bay Heavy are used to make bunker oil and diesel fuel. Less than 3% of the electricity generated in the US comes from oil-fired power plants, and all of those are in Hawaii, which barges in California Heavy (or Prudhoe Bay).
As oil prices began to spike several years ago, BP, Chevron and some of the independents, like Valero, converted some of their light and heavy towers to handle West Texas Intermediate (BP about 30% and Chevron >20%), which was selling for less than light oils on the world market.
If you understand that, plus understand organic chemistry, then you understand that drilling in Alaska is totally useless.
All of the oil in Alaska is heavy oil, and no benefit to you for gasoline.
Worse than that, if the new oil from ANWAR is not within 2 API of Prudhoe Bay and not the same sulfur content, you have to build a whole new trans-Alaskan oil pipeline to transport it to a port for shipment.
The height of distillation towers are built to the specifications of the oil.
You cannot refine light oil in an intermediate or heavy distillation tower (well actually you could, but you'd lose your shirt and be out of business).
Drilling in the Gulf is also useless.
West Texas Intermediate is a low-sulfur oil on the lighter end. East of that is, well, East Texas Sour, an heavier intermediate that has a high sulfur content. What's east of that? Louisiana Sour. A light oil on the heavy end that has a high sulfur content. There's only one refinery in the whole US that refine Louisiana Sour, and Exxon-Mobil runs it.
Wanna drill in the Gulf? It'll take 17 years to build another light-sour refinery to handle the capacity. Better start getting the EPA permits and doing the dozens of environmental impact studies and holding hearings now, as in yesterday.
Even worse than light sour would be another intermediate sour that is heavier or lighter than East Texas Sour. You'd have to build all new refineries and pipelines for that, too.
As I pointed out, yes, you can blend oils like Brent Blend, but you have to decide that before you start drilling, and before you build the pipelines and processing plants, and before you build the refineries.
And if one of those seven oil fields goes teats up, everyone is screwed.
And don't think you'll switch to electric cars either.
The Chevron refinery in St Rose, LA refines 30,000 barrels of Bonny Light from Nigeria every day, and doesn't produce a single gallon of gasoline.
In fact, the majority of light oil refineries don't produce significant quantities of gasoline. Why are we importing light oil from abroad?
For your life-style.
You benefit from the economy of scale.
It is precisely because the US uses 20 Million barrels of oil that you get cheap consumer trinkets.
That imported light oil makes all the pretty dyes in your clothes and the pretty packaging for all the things in the store.
It also makes the artifical flavors and colorings for your food and beverages that you wouldn't otherwise be eating or drinking, because a dog wouldn't eat or drink that crap.
It also makes the petro-chemical feed stocks for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and health and beauty aids, and all liquid detergents.
In this case we're talking organic alcohols (like neodol) and esters. That's why you have gel-caps, and liquid pills, because you import light oil from Venezuela and Nigeria and the Middle East. That's also why you have every single drug made since 1992.
Reduce the imports of foreign light oil, and you reduce the supply of feed-stocks.
If Demand remains constant and Supply decreases, prices rise.
That'll do wonders for the Medicare Prescription Plan. But then if people can't afford their high blood pressure pills and their cholesterol pills, that'll lower life expectancy, and maybe save Medicare and Social Security.
Like it or not, you're all married to foreign imported light oil. So learn to adjust and get used to it, or get used to living in the 1970s again. You can look at a Montgomery Ward catalog from the 1970s to see what colors you won't be wearing, and women can look at a 1970s Avon catalog to what cosmetics they won't have (and no, there won't be any frosted or semi-frosted or glossy anthing).
Now , you are wrong ( we all are at times) about the internal combustion engine, and Henry Ford . he had little to do with it, other than come up with a way to sell cars cheap.The model T Ford was a simple machine from the start, however not the first effort at building a small car. Owning an automobile at the turn of the Century was a rich mans thing. Few people in the working class could afford a car, until they became downsized, smaller, simpler and a lot cheaper. Ford was not the tech guy he has been credited to be, read your History.
The first engines in cars used naphtha as a fuel , it was purchased at the drug Store. Remember , we did not have gas stations, roads were random,mostly toll , and often did not connect between major points.
Autos have been around before 1900 , started in Europe,France , Germany and crossed the pond as race cars mostly in the early years. They were big , heavy and could run on what ever would burn in a low compression motor. It was all about cylinder bore, mass , and weight. The cu in displacement was not figured using bore and stroke , only bore.500 cu in displacement was common for a 4 cylinder, up to 800 in a 6. There were some huge cars , that could ( still can) go 70 MPH uphill in forth gear from a start, very impressive , but few roads to travel on in 1912. It took private interests coming together to get the ball rolling, for cross country travel. People like Siberling , Ford , Joy, Fischer, and others envisioned a cross country highway, they made it happen , 1913, the Linclon Highway , the rest became history.
That is why I believe that automobiles and trucks have no real long-term future for long-distance passenger and freight transportation in this country. We should start, like yesterday, rebuilding our rail transportation infrastructure. It is on the order of 2 to 3 times more fuel-efficient than highway transportation, and can be made even more efficient through electrification in many areas. Three quarters of a century ago, we had a rail transportation system for BOTH passenger and freight that was the envy of the world, but we essentially scrapped the passenger component of it when the auto manufacturers and oil companies convinced the political leadership of this country to totally socialize the road system upon the taxpayers--effectively subsidizing that transportation mode while leaving the private railroads to fend for themselves. We need to reverse that trend at once.
In the meantime, or--more properly--to buy us a little time, we should be actively embracing diesel automobiles in this country the way the Europeans have. A key step in that direction would be for the US to abandon its current asinine diesel emission standards, and simply adopt the European standard. If one considers the amount of pollutants that the poor efficiency of the American automobile fleet generates from well to tailpipe, the slightly higher emissions from diesel vehicles that the European standards would allow at the tailpipe would be easily be offset from emission reductions all the way through the oil production, refining, and distribution process that the increased fuel efficiency of those diesel vehicles would provide. Why our idiot politicians and the morons at EPA can't figure that out is beyond me. Adopting the European standards would allow a plethora of fuel-efficient diesel vehicles to be sold in the US--including some built by US manufacturers, but that can't be sold here--and would improve fleet fuel efficiency in the US substantially. As Mircea noted, more US crude is also suited to production of middle distillates like diesel fuel, as well. To the "hybrid-lovers," I say this: it is possible for a non-hybrid diesel engine-equipped car to achieve nearly as good urban fuel economy and as good or better highway fuel economy than a similarly-sized gasoline-hybrid car with much less mechanical and electronic complexity and at a lower vehicle purchase cost. And, a diesel-hybrid would be more efficient than a comparable gas hybrid.
So, we had better be doing the latter as a short-term fix for our festering energy problems, and we'd better be working on the former as quickly as possible for a longer-term fix. We have to do both, and we're running out of time.
As well as diesel , natural gas can also fuel our trucks,mass transit trains and buses , and stationary power generating stations. We have more natural gas than any other place on Earth...lets use it.
There have not been any new refining plants built, there is a reason. As long as we continue to import the easy stuff to refine, new plants will not be built. CITCO refines its oil , in part , in Venezuela, in the parent operation.
We need an alternative fuel for the interum...diesel and natural gas will go a long way in bridging the widening gap.
Now , you are wrong ( we all are at times) about the internal combustion engine, and Henry Ford . he had little to do with it, other than come up with a way to sell cars cheap.The model T Ford was a simple machine from the start, however not the first effort at building a small car. Owning an automobile at the turn of the Century was a rich mans thing. Few people in the working class could afford a car, until they became downsized, smaller, simpler and a lot cheaper. Ford was not the tech guy he has been credited to be, read your History.
The first engines in cars used naphtha as a fuel , it was purchased at the drug Store. Remember , we did not have gas stations, roads were random,mostly toll , and often did not connect between major points.
Autos have been around before 1900 , started in Europe,France , Germany and crossed the pond as race cars mostly in the early years. They were big , heavy and could run on what ever would burn in a low compression motor. It was all about cylinder bore, mass , and weight. The cu in displacement was not figured using bore and stroke , only bore.500 cu in displacement was common for a 4 cylinder, up to 800 in a 6. There were some huge cars , that could ( still can) go 70 MPH uphill in forth gear from a start, very impressive , but few roads to travel on in 1912. It took private interests coming together to get the ball rolling, for cross country travel. People like Siberling , Ford , Joy, Fischer, and others envisioned a cross country highway, they made it happen , 1913, the Linclon Highway , the rest became history.
Actually the diesel engine came first--and that first one ran on peanut oil. "Private interests" got the ball rolling on the automobile alright. They figured out early on that the automobile had no real future unless the building and maintenance of highways could be completely socialized upon the taxpayers--and they went to work the old fashioned way, by lobbying the crap out of the politicians, to make that happen. It think it very interesting when my fellow conservatives bleat and moan about the omnipotence of the federal government in all nature of things, and then go about blindly supporting the biggest socialist experiment in world history--the federally controlled, politician and bureaucrat-dictated, and completely taxpayer-funded American highway system. The pinnacle of that socialist experiment has been the American Interstate highway system that was copied from the brainchild of that Nationalist/Socialist Adolph Hitler--the German Autobahn.
I'm firmly convinced that America's love affair with the automobile and near complete dependence upon it, as much fun as it has been for the last near-century, has morphed into a monster that will be remembered as one of the biggest mistakes that any advanced civilization has ever made. It has reached the point that it has the very real potential to destroy this country economically, socially, and environmentally. It's a love affair that's gotten very perverted and pathological.
Actually the diesel engine came first--and that first one ran on peanut oil. "Private interests" got the ball rolling on the automobile alright. They figured out early on that the automobile had no real future unless the building and maintenance of highways could be completely socialized upon the taxpayers--and they went to work the old fashioned way, by lobbying the crap out of the politicians, to make that happen. It think it very interesting when my fellow conservatives bleat and moan about the omnipotence of the federal government in all nature of things, and then go about blindly supporting the biggest socialist experiment in world history--the federally controlled, politician and bureaucrat-dictated, and completely taxpayer-funded American highway system. The pinnacle of that socialist experiment has been the American Interstate highway system that was copied from the brainchild of that Nationalist/Socialist Adolph Hitler--the German Autobahn.
I'm firmly convinced that America's love affair with the automobile and near complete dependence upon it, as much fun as it has been for the last near-century, has morphed into a monster that will be remembered as one of the biggest mistakes that any advanced civilization has ever made. It has reached the point that it has the very real potential to destroy this country economically, socially, and environmentally. It's a love affair that's gotten very perverted and pathological.
Castor oil was used also. Most of the gasoline in the early days was very low octane compared to today.
The Movers and shakers knew if they wanted to sell more cars , there needed to be a highway system to handle it. In those early days , it took a long time to get anywhere with the road system we had. many Local jurisdictions put up roadblocks, States were not on the same page ether. It was an uphill battle, but , they did get it started. It is a good thing that the States finally got on board. There would never have been paved roads without it, we would be like Afghanistan today without our National Highway system.
The problem is , all the tax dollars collected from fuel taxes has gone into General revenue and not back into improving, repairing, our national network of roads and bridges. We have a mess that must be addressed sooner not latter. We live in These United States, crossing state lines must be seamless and no State or local body has the right to impede that. Our Highway system , the Interstates, are taken for granted, it IS part of national security and needs to be funded. I do agree , that mass transit, rail passenger service could not have been allowed to go away as it had. The rails were private...look where that got us. Today only bulk materials move in mass on our rails. WE NEED A RETURN TO CROSS COUNTRY PASSANGER SERVICE, LIKE EUROPE HAS . The airlines will fight it , just like GM took over the interurban service and shut down all the electric trains and buses. The story is a long one, history often repeats itself, I encourage everyone to take a look. Should we not heed our history...we will be doomed to repeat it.
The Interstates were sold to the American people as a tool of national security. For a time, they were actually built that way. Go along Interstate 70 in eastern Kansas--one of the first segments built--and you will notice that the overpasses are something like 20'-24' or higher over the highway, when the typical truck is not over 13'6" high. That is because, back in the late 50's, an ICBM on a trailer was nearly 20' tall. The Interstates aren't built that way any more, and haven't been for decades. The other pipedream was the the Interstates could be used to evacuate the cities to the countryside in the event of an imminent nuclear attack. Well, we know now that probably wouldn't have done any good anyway, and--if watching a typical metro rush hour or the complete chaos around trying to evacuate New Orleans before Katrina is in any way constructive--the whole idea of using Interstates to do ANYTHING quickly or efficiently in an emergency just evaporates. The idea that the Interstates are of any national security use is specious, especially if one takes into account that fuel supplies would likely be the first thing severely disrupted in a national emergency. In fact, history already shows us that. Hitler thought the Autobahns would be Germany's salvation during World War II. When the Allies effectively cut off most petroleum supplies to the Germans during World War II, the Autobahns became essentially useless for both civilian and military use by the Germans. They did provide convenient transporatation corridors for the invading American Army, though (because the Americans brought their fuel with them--often clear from the US--back when the US actually had plentiful oil reserves). On the other hand, the railroads handled the transportation of both goods and people, though not without some discomfort and hardship, quite efficiently during World War II.
If one is really concerned about having a transportation system that enhances national security, then rebuilding of an EXTENSIVE passenger rail network in the United States should be an immediate priority. Roads should be maintained for what they do best--local and farm-to-market (or rail distribution point) transportation.
The Interstates were sold to the American people as a tool of national security. For a time, they were actually built that way. Go along Interstate 70 in eastern Kansas--one of the first segments built--and you will notice that the overpasses are something like 20'-24' or higher over the highway, when the typical truck is not over 13'6" high. That is because, back in the late 50's, an ICBM on a trailer was nearly 20' tall. The Interstates aren't built that way any more, and haven't been for decades. The other pipedream was the the Interstates could be used to evacuate the cities to the countryside in the event of an imminent nuclear attack. Well, we know now that probably wouldn't have done any good anyway, and--if watching a typical metro rush hour or the complete chaos around trying to evacuate New Orleans before Katrina is in any way constructive--the whole idea of using Interstates to do ANYTHING quickly or efficiently in an emergency just evaporates. The idea that the Interstates are of any national security use is specious, especially if one takes into account that fuel supplies would likely be the first thing severely disrupted in a national emergency. In fact, history already shows us that. Hitler thought the Autobahns would be Germany's salvation during World War II. When the Allies effectively cut off most petroleum supplies to the Germans during World War II, the Autobahns became essentially useless for both civilian and military use by the Germans. They did provide convenient transporatation corridors for the invading American Army, though (because the Americans brought their fuel with them--often clear from the US--back when the US actually had plentiful oil reserves). On the other hand, the railroads handled the transportation of both goods and people, though not without some discomfort and hardship, quite efficiently during World War II.
If one is really concerned about having a transportation system that enhances national security, then rebuilding of an EXTENSIVE passenger rail network in the United States should be an immediate priority. Roads should be maintained for what they do best--local and farm-to-market (or rail distribution point) transportation.
I see where you are going with this , but , you are misguided in your thinking. I spent 40 years in the heavy and specialized trucking business. believe me , having high underpasses is a major need for not only national defence, Homeland security, natural disasters, on and on. 13'6 is the legal standard , however many products require higher clearances, more every day as our industry builds everything bigger , wider, taller and longer. The Rails are also hampered by old outdated bridges. Many times things can only move by truck because of this. A good current example is 3 16' dia tanks we are moving from Arkansas to ND. We loaded them today. finished out at 17' high. They are going to a Power Plant in ND. for pollution control needs.
Trucks can go whereever there are roads and then some. The train can only go where there are rails, rails that are in such bad condition that goods can often not withstand the rough ride by train due to computer controls etc. In the end , Trucks still do the final delivery, even if it does go by rail. Without our trucking Industry, the Country would shut down in a matter of days, its fact. Everything you have in your home comes by truck. We need better roads, bigger roads, and better axcess to move the nations goods.
I could go on ( you have hit the hot button) , but I won't, I think I have made my point. I agree with you on passanger transport , but , that is it.
I see I am not alone about 5.00 a gal gas. There is another thread talking about it. Again , we need to make diesel cost less than gas, and get people to switch over. Natural gas also for the trucking industry.and speciality autos/delivery vehicles....Bottom line , gasoline is old, outdated,and polluting, we do not need it when there are better ways to fuel our vehicles.
I see where you are going with this , but , you are misguided in your thinking. I spent 40 years in the heavy and specialized trucking business. believe me , having high underpasses is a major need for not only national defence, Homeland security, natural disasters, on and on. 13'6 is the legal standard , however many products require higher clearances, more every day as our industry builds everything bigger , wider, taller and longer. The Rails are also hampered by old outdated bridges. Many times things can only move by truck because of this. A good current example is 3 16' dia tanks we are moving from Arkansas to ND. We loaded them today. finished out at 17' high. They are going to a Power Plant in ND. for pollution control needs.
Trucks can go whereever there are roads and then some. The train can only go where there are rails, rails that are in such bad condition that goods can often not withstand the rough ride by train due to computer controls etc. In the end , Trucks still do the final delivery, even if it does go by rail. Without our trucking Industry, the Country would shut down in a matter of days, its fact. Everything you have in your home comes by truck. We need better roads, bigger roads, and better axcess to move the nations goods.
I could go on ( you have hit the hot button) , but I won't, I think I have made my point. I agree with you on passanger transport , but , that is it.
Hate to tell you, but there are plenty of "high-wide" corridors on the rails. In fact, things like Boeing fuselages travel cross-country by rail because highways can't accomodate them. Yes, there are many areas where that is not possible, but, in part, that is because the rail infrastructure has not kept up with needs. I agree with you that the country would "go down" in a matter of days without trucking right now, and THAT is exactly the problem-- because infrastructure deterioration, and soon-to-be exploding fuel prices and outright shortages ARE going to take the long-distance trucking industry down. In fact, the long distance trucking industry is already on the ropes in many places. If fuel goes above $4/gal. for diesel fuel this summer, as some expect it may, we will see a real bloodbath in the trucking industry. I don't dispute that short-distance trucking connected by intermodal rail will continue to be both essential and necessary, but the long-distance component needs to go.
I do a lot of research on the transportation industry, and rail in particular, but back when I had the equivalent of a CDL and did some driving for awhile, so the trucking industry is something I do have some direct knowledge about.
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.
