WINNABLE Gas War

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:
>> <Tom Veatch> wrote in message
>>
>>> A bunch of utter nonsense based on total ignorance of fungible
>>> commodity markets.
>>
>> What's the price/gallon, adjusted for inflation from say, 1982
>> (twenty five years)?
>>
>> Seems that would be a pretty good way to judge the current cost in the
>> scheme of things.
>
> http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
>
> If gas peaked around $1.30 in 1981 today (as of 2006) after inflation it
> would be $3.07 today..............Fed and State taxes have raised
> considerably over that time per gallon but I don't know where they fall
> proportionally. I'd still suspect the Gov. take has exceeded actual or
> relative road costs...i.e mass transit is largely funded via gas taxes. On
> the other hand if memory serves me correctly a barrel of oil hit $30-$40
> or so per barrel before collapsing below $10 in the mid 80's.....$35 in
> 1981 would equal after inflation $82.57 today. Since today's price is
> around $66 we can blame regulation, refineries and local taxes. Rod
>

IIRC I remember gas prices reaching about 80-85 cents per gallon in Texas
during the shortage in the early 80's. According to the California Energy
Comission, the yearly Average price in California was $1.34 per gallon. For
the inflation prices to be in line, the prices "in 2006" would have to be
$2.63 per gallon on average. Does any one know where I can buy gas for
$2.63 per gallon?

On May 22, 4:08=EF=BF=BDam, Puckdropper <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote innews:IOt4i.21592$YL5.12164@news=
svr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>
> > Not so. =A0There was a gas war and I WON. =A0Yes, the beer and hard boi=
led
> > eggs won out over baked beans. =A0Cleared out the entire office for
> > twenty minutes.
>
> Just don't light a match...

Or do, and see a real clearance.

On May 30, 7:31 am, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> | If we
> | "procrastinate" long enough then somebody will find an economically
> | viable way to obtain carbon from atmospheric CO2 and the long term
> | production of synthetic gasoline will become possible,
>
> And so will perpetual motion. I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation of
> how a fuel might be synthesized from its constituant elements in a
> reaction that consumes less energy than will be released in its
> subsequent oxidation.
>
Sometimes the price of converting one type of energy to another is
worth it.
A nuclear power station is not very portable, the hydrogen extracted
from water through electrolysis is pretty predictable and is portable.
This is just an example.

We are making some headway with battery technology. Solar to charge
batteries is another path, but batteries are quite dirty, from a land-
fill perspective.
Some argue that the impact on the environment of a Prius is worse than
a Hummer, if one includes the entire life-cycle of the products.

Oh, and that 500 HP bass boat?? Try 2 x 250 HP... leave one for
trolling...<EG>

Jeff Gagnon wrote:
> GAS WAR??
>
> a GAS WAR idea that WILL work---->

Regrettably not......The "two oil companies" would simply wholesale the gas
to everybody else whom wasn't being boycotted. Even worse such a boycott
might even initially raise prices since "everybody else" would have
increased demand and the two intended oil companies could charge a premium
for their now surplus gas. Rod

Leon wrote:
> An interseting side note, The Shell VP was on the news the other day
> and he indicated the supply and demand excuse cutting short of
> calling it what it actually is, "what the market will bare. He said
> there is no shortage of oil, simply a shortate of a way to produce
> gasoline. With no shortage of oil and oil prices being lower than
> what they have been, why is gasoline at an all time high? It's, what
> the market will bare. He also went on to say that no oil refinery
> has been built since 1977, too much governmant red tape and cost. Awhhhh,
> what part of business does not have red tape??? If they
> built more refineries there would be less restriction on refining.

No business has red tape like energy-related ones. A gas-fired electrical
generating plant was built in my area a few years ago. It took ELEVEN YEARS
to get past all the regulatory hurdles and court cases before construction
was begun. It then took another three years to actually build the thing.

Gasoline is not at an all-time high, either in actual cost or in percentage
of disposable income. That high took place in 1981.

I remind you that there are five different blends of gasoline required in
the Chicago area. This kind of silliness wrecks havoc in the distribution
scheme.


>
> Another interesting note, a long time friend and neighbor is an
> engeneer that just finished working in California. He was the site
> cost engeneer overseeing the expenses of revamping a refinery for
> Valero. He learned that in California that Valero's cost to produce
> 1 gallon of gasoline is $1.02 and 1 gallon of diesel is $0.89.
>
> Oil companies claim demand is up and some have even blamed the
> earlier day light saving time this year as a reason. If demand is up
> and creating a problem I wonder who is sitting in line to get gas? I
> remember those shortages in the 70's, those were more real than what
> we have today.
>
>
>>
>> I'm not an economist either, but I took a couple classes in college.
>>
>> What can you do to "win" this gas price escallation? Drive a more
>> fuel efficient car and take a bike or walk if you're close enough to
>> the place you're going. If you should be pressuring anybody, it
>> should be the insurance companies in order to make purpose-based
>> vehicle ownership cheaper. That way, when you need to haul several
>> sheets of plywood, you can do it. When you just need a couple
>> screws, a few pieces of sandpaper, and a gallon of milk, you can
>> drive a more fuel efficient car to get those items.
>
> Get rid of the need for gasoline altogether. Yes it will affect the
> economy, but oil is used for a lot more than producing fuel for cars
> and trucks. The typical gasoline engine only makes use of 25% of the
> fuel it burns the other 75% is lost to heat. The new hybrid yet to
> be marketed cars can operate from electricity for about 2.2 cents per
> mile. While converting fuel to electriciey is wastful, it is not
> nearly as inefficient as letting the engine in your car convert the
> fuel into useable energy. Typically, all things being equal the cost
> of electricity needed to drive a car the same distance as 1 gallon of
> gasoline, would be 75 cents as compared to gasoline at $3 per gallon.
> This information is from the specs on the GM Volt concept car and the
> from the Zap motor company that has been producing electric vehicles
> in California for the last 10 years. Zap has produced and sold over
> 90,000 vehicles world wide.

Swingman wrote:
> <Tom Veatch> wrote in message
>
>> A bunch of utter nonsense based on total ignorance of fungible
>> commodity markets.
>
> What's the price/gallon, adjusted for inflation from say, 1982
> (twenty five years)?
>
> Seems that would be a pretty good way to judge the current cost in the
> scheme of things.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

If gas peaked around $1.30 in 1981 today (as of 2006) after inflation it
would be $3.07 today..............Fed and State taxes have raised
considerably over that time per gallon but I don't know where they fall
proportionally. I'd still suspect the Gov. take has exceeded actual or
relative road costs...i.e mass transit is largely funded via gas taxes. On
the other hand if memory serves me correctly a barrel of oil hit $30-$40 or
so per barrel before collapsing below $10 in the mid 80's.....$35 in 1981
would equal after inflation $82.57 today. Since today's price is around $66
we can blame regulation, refineries and local taxes. Rod

[email protected] (Jeff Gagnon) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

*snip*

> Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all. (If
> you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to
> do is send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't
> a mathematician. (But I am, so trust me on this one.) How long would
> all that take? 

*snip*

A mathemetician, perhaps, but not an economist. Gas is not a competive
market commodity, supply is purposely fixed and carefully regulated so
demand will drive the prices higher. Sounds like a monopoly to me.

I'm not an economist either, but I took a couple classes in college.

What can you do to "win" this gas price escallation? Drive a more fuel
efficient car and take a bike or walk if you're close enough to the
place you're going. If you should be pressuring anybody, it should be
the insurance companies in order to make purpose-based vehicle ownership
cheaper. That way, when you need to haul several sheets of plywood, you
can do it. When you just need a couple screws, a few pieces of
sandpaper, and a gallon of milk, you can drive a more fuel efficient car
to get those items.

To the OP: Please note the proper tagging of the subject line with
[OT]. All posts (including general interest) that aren't about wood
working originally should be marked with this notation.

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

B A R R Y wrote:

| On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:12:05 GMT, "Phil-in-MI" <NO Spam &
| [email protected]> wrote:
|
|| Aside: How can I continue to indulge in woodworking as a hobby
|| when I am now spending $50.00 per week on gas just to go to work.
|
| This is why some folks also consider rising energy prices to be
| anti-inflationary.

I don't think so. As the cost of production goes up, the price of
goods and services will remain at some multiplier of that cost. It's
been a long time since I studied this stuff, but isn't this "cost
push" inflation?

| You have to go to work, and you have to eat. When these basics go
| up, you spend less on other, discretionary items, slowing the
| overall economy.

Yuppers - but many will reconsider their means of transportation, and
many will find ways to spend less on food.

Application of Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences to
the scenario indicates that more people will be driving "beaters" than
will be shifting to public transportation, and that there will be an
increase in malnutrition and general health problems.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Leon wrote:

<snip>

| Get rid of the need for gasoline altogether. Yes it will affect the
| economy, but oil is used for a lot more than producing fuel for
| cars and trucks.

*YES!* Thank you for saying the words that so much needed to be said.
It _will_ happen in the long term, and the only open question is how
painful the transition will be - and the longer we procrastinate the
more difficult the change.

Even if we were to achieve global "no-fuel" energy production
(unlikely in the short and intermediate term) we would still likely
need significant amounts of petroleum for non-fuel uses.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Jeff Gagnon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

GAS WAR??

a GAS WAR idea that WILL work---->

<cutting out the garbage>

This whole Gas War thing is just a stupid rumor! There is no retired Coke
executive, and there is no plan! What good do you think it would do to
boycott one or two gasoline companies? All that would do is force you to buy
gas from someone else! Boy! That solves the whole problem! (Sarcasm
intended). Anyone that believes the whole "gas war" thing is a bigger idiot
than I thought possible!

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Not so. There was a gas war and I WON. Yes, the beer and hard boiled
> eggs won out over baked beans. Cleared out the entire office for
> twenty minutes.
>

Just don't light a match...

J. Clarke wrote:

| If we
| "procrastinate" long enough then somebody will find an economically
| viable way to obtain carbon from atmospheric CO2 and the long term
| production of synthetic gasoline will become possible,

And so will perpetual motion. I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation of
how a fuel might be synthesized from its constituant elements in a
reaction that consumes less energy than will be released in its
subsequent oxidation.

Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

J. Clarke wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:

|| Even if we were to achieve global "no-fuel" energy production
|| (unlikely in the short and intermediate term)
|
| Or any other term. Your vision of a world powered by "free" solar
| energy ain't gonna happen.

That's not /my/ vision - if that's what you've inferred from my
enthusiasm for using solar energy where it offers economic advantage,
then you're over-simplifying and over-generalizing.

|| we would still likely
|| need significant amounts of petroleum for non-fuel uses.
|
| Which can and in the long term will be synthesized. There's nothing
| magic about the chemistry of dead dinosaurs. The best quality
| lubricants are synthesized already.

Without disagreeing with your statement, I'd suggest that at some
point we may find dead dinos in short supply - and that the synthesis
of which you speak requires a net energy input.

I also hope for a fundamental breakthrough in energy production. The
problem with such breakthrough events is their unpredictability. It
could happen later today - or it could happen thousand years from now.
I'm of the opinion that a decision to gamble on a "timely"
breakthrough carries unacceptable risk. YMMV.

There's another fly in the ointment: consider the consequences of a
breakthrough that provided a handy low-temperature fusion power source
using some commonly available fuel (water would be nice, yes?) that
could be made small enough and inexpensively enough to provide
essentially unlimited no-cost energy for everyone on the planet.

Sounds attractive until one realizes that this unlimited no-cost
energy is going to be released as thermal energy regardless of the
form in which it is generated or used.

You might find it interesting to estimate how much energy you might
use if you weren't constrained by cost (just imagine, you could have a
500hp bass boat to speed you to your favorite fishing spot!) - then
multiply by the population of the planet and convert to Btu (500 hp =
372.849936kW, 1kWh = 3412.14163Btu).

All things considered, I kinda like the idea of making good (and
better) use of what we already have.

BTW, I'm still interested in learning why the folks in your area got
rid of their solar panels. If you don't want to publicly post the
info, I'd welcome an e-mail...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Lew Hodgett wrote:

| It has been many years since I toiled in the vineyards of
| thermodynamics; however, I am certain that The General Energy
| Equation still rules.
|
| It is rather brutal when it comes to separating the horse crap from
| the alfalfa.

True, but Han has just pointed in a direction that may prove
interesting. IIRC, there was some possibly promising work being done
in Israel with solar/bacterial bioconversion. I didn't hear much and
haven't heard anything for some time - so don't know if the research
dead-ended or was put under wraps.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

{Snip}
>
> A mathemetician, perhaps, but not an economist. Gas is not a competive
> market commodity, supply is purposely fixed and carefully regulated so
> demand will drive the prices higher. Sounds like a monopoly to me.
>

I agree with Puckdropper.

Supply and demand says it all. If the cost of gas has no effect on demand,
why shouldn't it continue to go up? Only when the overall demand changes
will the price of gas stabilize.

Prior to January 2001, my local gas prices were influenced by competition
between local gas stations. Not no more! There is only one or two sources
of wholesale gas, and ALL gas stations in my area get their supply from this
small quantity of (non-completive?) sources. It is the total demand that
will change the equation, not just a boycott of some independent owned
franchise station. Why pick on the little guy with no influence?

Puckdropper correctly pointed out, use less gas.

Aside: How can I continue to indulge in woodworking as a hobby when I am
now spending $50.00 per week on gas just to go to work. That is double
what I spent on gas just 3 or 4 years ago. $25.00 a week adds up to a lot
of tools, wood, and wood hobby magazines. And I ain't got it as bad as many
others who need 2 tanks of gas to get to work each week because of how far
in the suburbs they live from work.
{If my local Woodcraft store is 4 gallons of gas away (round trip), that
makes the cost of that .......}

Phil

Han <[email protected]> writes:
>"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in news:465d6104$0$502$815e3792
>@news.qwest.net:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>| If we
>>| "procrastinate" long enough then somebody will find an economically
>>| viable way to obtain carbon from atmospheric CO2 and the long term
>>| production of synthetic gasoline will become possible,
>>
>> And so will perpetual motion. I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation of
>> how a fuel might be synthesized from its constituant elements in a
>> reaction that consumes less energy than will be released in its
>> subsequent oxidation.
>>
>> Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though. :-)
>>
>That type of reaction would violate the principles of thermodynamics (see,
>my Dutch side is shining through <grin>). However, it would be nice to use
>sunlight to split water molecules, release the oxygen, but trap the
>hydrogen for use as a fuel. Something analogous to photosynthesis, which
>is slowly releasing some of its secrets, the latest being some ultrafast
>intra- or intermolecular twisting to make the essential reaction happen.
>Don't pin me on the details, just see Science magazine. You can start
>here: <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;316/5825/703>
>

However, there was recent article about a researcher who alloyed a low
grade of gallium with aluminum (aluminium for the right ponders) and found
it makes an execellent catalyst for the separation of H from O2 in water;
the H2 can be subsequently burned or used in a fuel cell. The gallium
prevents the Al from forming an oxide layer which inhibits the catalytic
reaction.

This has some promise; fill your tank with the Al alloy and another smaller
tank with water. The catalyst does require a substantial amount of energy
to regenerate, but the regen plants can be co-located with Hydro or Nuclear
plants. The current projections were in the equiv to $4.00 or so a gal gas.

scott

Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> writes:
>Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> >
> > True, but Han has just pointed in a direction that may prove
> > interesting. IIRC, there was some possibly promising work being done
> > in Israel with solar/bacterial bioconversion. I didn't hear much and
> > haven't heard anything for some time - so don't know if the research
> > dead-ended or was put under wraps.
>
>Here in California, we not only have oil to be sucked out of the
>ground and refined, but also geo-thermal, solar and wind.

Yup. Interestingly, the Wilmington fields have more than quadrupled
production (from 200 bbl/day to almost 4000 bbl/day) in the last
couple of years, due to advanced extraction/injection techniques.

And don't forget the big solar reflector plant up in the high desert.

scott

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Gasoline is not at an all-time high, either in actual cost or in
> percentage of disposable income. That high took place in 1981.

Actually gasoline is at an all time high. Compared to a cost of living
example of how things were in 1981 is simply a comparison of the percentage
of your income that went towards purchasing gasoline then vs. now.
Even with that in consideration, last year when gasoline prices were
considerable less than they are today we were within about 10% of having
matched that ratio compairison of 1981 prices. We are certainly paying much
more today than we were last year.

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <Tom Veatch> wrote in message
>
>> A bunch of utter nonsense based on total ignorance of fungible
>> commodity markets.
>
> What's the price/gallon, adjusted for inflation from say, 1982 (twenty
> five
> years)?
>
> Seems that would be a pretty good way to judge the current cost in the
> scheme of things.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 2/20/07
> KarlC@ (the obvious)
>
>

IIRC the price of gasoline last year was just under the equivalent price of
gasoline in 1982. Now it is 50% higher.

"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Gagnon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> GAS WAR??
>
> a GAS WAR idea that WILL work---->
>
> <cutting out the garbage>
>
> This whole Gas War thing is just a stupid rumor!

Not so. There was a gas war and I WON. Yes, the beer and hard boiled eggs
won out over baked beans. Cleared out the entire office for twenty minutes.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> IIRC I remember gas prices reaching about 80-85 cents per gallon in Texas
> during the shortage in the early 80's. According to the California Energy
> Comission, the yearly Average price in California was $1.34 per gallon.
> For the inflation prices to be in line, the prices "in 2006" would have to
> be $2.63 per gallon on average. Does any one know where I can buy gas for
> $2.63 per gallon?
>

Something else to consider, since gasoline is used by 99.9999% of the people
in the US, it's pricing itself has a lot to do with the yearly inflation
rate. Rising gasoline is a big contributor to the inflation rate.

"Puckdropper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> A mathemetician, perhaps, but not an economist. Gas is not a competive
> market commodity, supply is purposely fixed and carefully regulated so
> demand will drive the prices higher. Sounds like a monopoly to me.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. The version of Supply and Demand
that we are seeing, has progressed to the stage of "What the market will
bare. This is not however a monopoly as other companies are involved.
Letting all the oil companies merge in to 1/2 the number that there were
around 10 years ago, basically eleminating 1/2 the competition is a steer
towards a monopoly like trend. I firmly believe that oil prices are fixed
by fear much like fear drives the stock market. If the local and national
news woudl SHUT UP about anouncing gas prices goin up the oil companies
would not have to raise the prices to meet our expectations. The oil
companies love the news agency being the barer of bad news, it gets us ready
for the next price hike.

An interseting side note, The Shell VP was on the news the other day and he
indicated the supply and demand excuse cutting short of calling it what it
actually is, "what the market will bare. He said there is no shortage of
oil, simply a shortate of a way to produce gasoline. With no shortage of
oil and oil prices being lower than what they have been, why is gasoline at
an all time high? It's, what the market will bare. He also went on to say
that no oil refinery has been built since 1977, too much governmant red tape
and cost. Awhhhh, what part of business does not have red tape??? If they
built more refineries there would be less restriction on refining.

Another interesting note, a long time friend and neighbor is an engeneer
that just finished working in California. He was the site cost engeneer
overseeing the expenses of revamping a refinery for Valero. He learned that
in California that Valero's cost to produce 1 gallon of gasoline is $1.02
and 1 gallon of diesel is $0.89.

Oil companies claim demand is up and some have even blamed the earlier day
light saving time this year as a reason. If demand is up and creating a
problem I wonder who is sitting in line to get gas? I remember those
shortages in the 70's, those were more real than what we have today.



>
> I'm not an economist either, but I took a couple classes in college.
>
> What can you do to "win" this gas price escallation? Drive a more fuel
> efficient car and take a bike or walk if you're close enough to the
> place you're going. If you should be pressuring anybody, it should be
> the insurance companies in order to make purpose-based vehicle ownership
> cheaper. That way, when you need to haul several sheets of plywood, you
> can do it. When you just need a couple screws, a few pieces of
> sandpaper, and a gallon of milk, you can drive a more fuel efficient car
> to get those items.

Get rid of the need for gasoline altogether. Yes it will affect the
economy, but oil is used for a lot more than producing fuel for cars and
trucks. The typical gasoline engine only makes use of 25% of the fuel it
burns the other 75% is lost to heat. The new hybrid yet to be marketed cars
can operate from electricity for about 2.2 cents per mile. While converting
fuel to electriciey is wastful, it is not nearly as inefficient as letting
the engine in your car convert the fuel into useable energy. Typically, all
things being equal the cost of electricity needed to drive a car the same
distance as 1 gallon of gasoline, would be 75 cents as compared to gasoline
at $3 per gallon. This information is from the specs on the GM Volt concept
car and the from the Zap motor company that has been producing electric
vehicles in California for the last 10 years. Zap has produced and sold
over 90,000 vehicles world wide.

<Tom Veatch> wrote in message

> A bunch of utter nonsense based on total ignorance of fungible
> commodity markets.

What's the price/gallon, adjusted for inflation from say, 1982 (twenty five
years)?

Seems that would be a pretty good way to judge the current cost in the
scheme of things.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Gasoline is not at an all-time high, either in actual cost or in
>> percentage of disposable income. That high took place in 1981.
>
> Actually gasoline is at an all time high. Compared to a cost of
> living example of how things were in 1981 is simply a comparison of
> the percentage of your income that went towards purchasing gasoline
> then vs. now. Even with that in consideration, last year when gasoline
> prices were considerable less than they are today we were within
> about 10% of having matched that ratio compairison of 1981 prices. We
> are certainly paying much more today than we were last year.
>
Well my salary is certainly higher today than it was in 1981 (that's a good
thing!). Unfortunately, we decided on a minivan a few years back, rather
than a small sedan. I'm trying to compensate by bicycling and using the
trains. Since I am now a senior citizen according to NJ Transit (62!),
cost of train travel has gone down by ~50%. Walking from the station to
work is also good for me.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in news:465d6104$0$502$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>| If we
>| "procrastinate" long enough then somebody will find an economically
>| viable way to obtain carbon from atmospheric CO2 and the long term
>| production of synthetic gasoline will become possible,
>
> And so will perpetual motion. I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation of
> how a fuel might be synthesized from its constituant elements in a
> reaction that consumes less energy than will be released in its
> subsequent oxidation.
>
> Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though. :-)
>
That type of reaction would violate the principles of thermodynamics (see,
my Dutch side is shining through <grin>). However, it would be nice to use
sunlight to split water molecules, release the oxygen, but trap the
hydrogen for use as a fuel. Something analogous to photosynthesis, which
is slowly releasing some of its secrets, the latest being some ultrafast
intra- or intermolecular twisting to make the essential reaction happen.
Don't pin me on the details, just see Science magazine. You can start
here: <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;316/5825/703>

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Morris Dovey wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Get rid of the need for gasoline altogether. Yes it will affect the
>> economy, but oil is used for a lot more than producing fuel for
>> cars and trucks.
>
> *YES!* Thank you for saying the words that so much needed to be said.
> It _will_ happen in the long term, and the only open question is how
> painful the transition will be - and the longer we procrastinate the
> more difficult the change.

No "procrastination". The only way for such a change to occur at this
time would be for the government to subsidize the alternative
technology. When the price of gas goes high enough that something else
is significantly cheaper then we'll see an alternative technology
brought to market. Right now that is not the case.

I don't see how "procrastinating" while more efficient technologies are
developed will make the change "more difficult". If we "procrastinate"
long enough then somebody will find an economically viable way to obtain
carbon from atmospheric CO2 and the long term production of synthetic
gasoline will become possible, at which time a "transition" will no
longer be necessary, we'll just keep on doing what we're doing only
using gasoline synthezied from hydrogen and carbon derived from water
and air, with the energy input coming from nuclear energy, instead of
using gasoline derived from something pumped out of holes in the ground.
And if we procrastinate long enough then that nuclear energy will come
from fusion, which we can with the available stocks of hydrogen continue
using at far higher rates than today for a large multiple of the
anticipated life of the universe.

> Even if we were to achieve global "no-fuel" energy production
> (unlikely in the short and intermediate term)

Or any other term. Your vision of a world powered by "free" solar
energy ain't gonna happen.

> we would still likely
> need significant amounts of petroleum for non-fuel uses.

Which can and in the long term will be synthesized. There's nothing
magic about the chemistry of dead dinosaurs. The best quality
lubricants are synthesized already.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

HeyBub wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> An interseting side note, The Shell VP was on the news the other day
>> and he indicated the supply and demand excuse cutting short of
>> calling it what it actually is, "what the market will bare. He said
>> there is no shortage of oil, simply a shortate of a way to produce
>> gasoline. With no shortage of oil and oil prices being lower than
>> what they have been, why is gasoline at an all time high? It's, what
>> the market will bare. He also went on to say that no oil refinery
>> has been built since 1977, too much governmant red tape and cost.
>> Awhhhh, what part of business does not have red tape??? If they
>> built more refineries there would be less restriction on refining.
>
> No business has red tape like energy-related ones. A gas-fired
> electrical generating plant was built in my area a few years ago. It
> took ELEVEN YEARS to get past all the regulatory hurdles and court
> cases before construction was begun. It then took another three years
> to actually build the thing.
>
> Gasoline is not at an all-time high, either in actual cost or in
> percentage of disposable income. That high took place in 1981.

The last I heard it was a half cent a gallon below the 1981 peak in
constant dollars. However it's my understanding that wages haven't kept
pace with inflation since 1981 so I'd like to see a source for your
contention that it is currently a lower percentage of disposable income.

> I remind you that there are five different blends of gasoline
> required in the Chicago area. This kind of silliness wrecks havoc in
> the distribution scheme.
>
>
>>
>> Another interesting note, a long time friend and neighbor is an
>> engeneer that just finished working in California. He was the site
>> cost engeneer overseeing the expenses of revamping a refinery for
>> Valero. He learned that in California that Valero's cost to produce
>> 1 gallon of gasoline is $1.02 and 1 gallon of diesel is $0.89.
>>
>> Oil companies claim demand is up and some have even blamed the
>> earlier day light saving time this year as a reason. If demand is up
>> and creating a problem I wonder who is sitting in line to get gas? I
>> remember those shortages in the 70's, those were more real than what
>> we have today.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not an economist either, but I took a couple classes in college.
>>>
>>> What can you do to "win" this gas price escallation? Drive a more
>>> fuel efficient car and take a bike or walk if you're close enough to
>>> the place you're going. If you should be pressuring anybody, it
>>> should be the insurance companies in order to make purpose-based
>>> vehicle ownership cheaper. That way, when you need to haul several
>>> sheets of plywood, you can do it. When you just need a couple
>>> screws, a few pieces of sandpaper, and a gallon of milk, you can
>>> drive a more fuel efficient car to get those items.
>>
>> Get rid of the need for gasoline altogether. Yes it will affect the
>> economy, but oil is used for a lot more than producing fuel for cars
>> and trucks. The typical gasoline engine only makes use of 25% of the
>> fuel it burns the other 75% is lost to heat. The new hybrid yet to
>> be marketed cars can operate from electricity for about 2.2 cents per
>> mile. While converting fuel to electriciey is wastful, it is not
>> nearly as inefficient as letting the engine in your car convert the
>> fuel into useable energy. Typically, all things being equal the cost
>> of electricity needed to drive a car the same distance as 1 gallon of
>> gasoline, would be 75 cents as compared to gasoline at $3 per gallon.
>> This information is from the specs on the GM Volt concept car and the
>> from the Zap motor company that has been producing electric vehicles
>> in California for the last 10 years. Zap has produced and sold over
>> 90,000 vehicles world wide.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sun, 20 May 2007 19:40:44 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm trying to compensate by bicycling and using the
>trains.

I LOVE riding my bike for actual transportation. Actually, I love
riding it anywhere, but to replace driving is extra fun!

My favorite is riding to the liquor store for microbrew and getting
asked "When do you get your license back?" <G> Seriously!

"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff Gagnon wrote:
>> GAS WAR??
>>
>> a GAS WAR idea that WILL work---->
>
> Regrettably not......The "two oil companies" would simply wholesale the
> gas to everybody else whom wasn't being boycotted. Even worse such a
> boycott might even initially raise prices since "everybody else" would
> have increased demand and the two intended oil companies could charge a
> premium for their now surplus gas. Rod
>
>
>

Exactly. They are all sleeping with each other.

Morris Dovey wrote:

>
> True, but Han has just pointed in a direction that may prove
> interesting. IIRC, there was some possibly promising work being done
> in Israel with solar/bacterial bioconversion. I didn't hear much and
> haven't heard anything for some time - so don't know if the research
> dead-ended or was put under wraps.

Here in California, we not only have oil to be sucked out of the
ground and refined, but also geo-thermal, solar and wind.

Also some interesting work being done in reverse osmosis, especially
since SoCal is basically a desert and control of the water supply is a
political art form.

Some interesting work being done with solar to generate steam to run
turbines to turn generators to generate power.

Interesting way to generate high voltage AC as opposed to using solar
to generate low voltage DC.


Lew

On Sun, 20 May 2007 03:02:35 -0400, [email protected] (Jeff Gagnon)
wrote:

A bunch of utter nonsense based on total ignorance of fungible
commodity markets.

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:

> And so will perpetual motion. I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation of
> how a fuel might be synthesized from its constituant elements in a
> reaction that consumes less energy than will be released in its
> subsequent oxidation.

It has been many years since I toiled in the vineyards of
thermodynamics; however, I am certain that The General Energy Equation
still rules.

It is rather brutal when it comes to separating the horse crap from
the alfalfa.

Lew

To the original poster:

Your post is pure bullshit. I'm sure you're just a troll. But here is a link
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/exxon-mobil-boycott.htm in regards
to the post. I use the site on a weekly basis, since I get emails from
coworkers who seemed to get suckered into just about anything.

On Sun, 20 May 2007 11:12:05 GMT, "Phil-in-MI" <NO Spam &
[email protected]> wrote:

>Aside: How can I continue to indulge in woodworking as a hobby when I am
>now spending $50.00 per week on gas just to go to work.

This is why some folks also consider rising energy prices to be
anti-inflationary.

You have to go to work, and you have to eat. When these basics go up,
you spend less on other, discretionary items, slowing the overall
economy.

It's suggesting a chain letter; those are illegal, even on the internet.