Well they could be talking 380 million gallons per day. There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel. Only around 20 gallons of that becomes gasoline. I think that we burn ~140 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Divide that by 365 and you get 383 million gallons per day.
We use about 380 million gal of gas a day in the US, so thats a possible source. Either that or a random number generator
...if every U.S. car got only 1 more mpg it would save 375,000 barrels of oil per day.
Maybe a little less, but about right. At 380M gal/day and an avg of 25 mpg, we travel about 9.5B miles/day. At 26 mpg, we'd use around 365M gal/day, or around 4% less.
...yet no one will broach the idea of increasing the supply.
Build more refineries; drill for more oil; and construct coal gasification and thermal depolymerization facilities.
I believe we have discussed this before, quite a few times. When the crude price comes down, the gas price at the pump doesnt. Apparently the cost stays up due to a lack of US refining capacity.
The oil companies are not interested in building new refineries 'cause there is little return on investment. We do not want to conserve gas, either, as is apparent on this thread. We want to tow our 3mpg boats, drive at 75mph, and proudly cheer at NASCAR. So it is pretty much the politics of oil - call it price gouging or whatever.
I read a post of "ahhhhh, gas is coming down to $3.50". That is our classic reaction. Let the price shoot up to $5/gal for a month and bring it back slowly to $4.50, everybody will be happy and relaxed. I think the oil companies have studied the mass hysteria and these sentiments really well. Good for their shareholders.
I think a check on oil price will be achieved only when the oil price hits the bottom lines of other corporations (reduced retail and home sales, etc). Then they will be fighting on how to slice the pie of public money with their lobbies in Washington. May be we will see a few new refineries at that point.
Which is about 1% less globally. Which means it would cut back global usage to the point where we were 2-3 months ago. But since oil usage or at least the demand will still be increasing, it would be a very, very short-term fix.
My solution for Iraq - outsource the occupation to China. Ask China to raise a small force (for them) of 5 to 10 million soldiers and police. Every male citizen between the ages of 10 and 70 has a chaperone. Anyone without a chaperone is a suspected militant/infiltrator. Seriously we'll never control that country; the only way Saddam did was to use Saddam tactics.
Aint gonna happen, IMO. This is really a war about control of the worlds energy resources (and oil $), I agree with you there. But as the Chinese consumption (and auto industry) grows, they will be in direct conflict with the US. They are already getting into deals with Canada, scouting the African nations for drilling/refining rights. Dont ask me for references, I read them on the news a while back. The US may not be willing to give China all that control.
Will be interesting to watch what happens when populous countries like China and India want their per capita gas (energy) consumption to be at par with Americans. Price of gas going through the roof? More wars? Only time will tell.
Well, it depends on what the "problem" is that one wants to "fix". If it's high gas price in the US, yes, I doubt that a one-time 1 mpg drop would do that much by itself....but you do have to remember that reducing the 4% global increase in demand to zero for as many years as you can increase the efficiency by the amount globally will keep prices from rising. Of course, you'd have to match that efficiency in the non-transportation sectors to do that.
But that might not be the thing that needs fixing. Some would argue that a higher price is to embrace, not recoil from, since it will spur development of what we really need, alternative fuels. In that case, it just buys us some time to come up with the alternative, before the price rises so high as to be disruptive...and, of course, that's what will happen...we won't run out of oil, it will just get really expensive. And by then, we'll either have an alternative or we'll implode.
And maybe a longer growing season and waterfront property in Nevada
Yes I'm very aware of those trends. I've been most impressed with your knowledge and understanding of the Big picture, whether it be based on geological history or human psychology, or global economics and politics.
My comments about Iraq were simply to imply we have far too small a force, and allow too much freedom while we're still trying to gain control (is that like allowing mail during a prison riot?). My post also was that we're fighting in Iraq mainly to deter it being used as a base for terrorism; Afghanistan has no oil and we're doing the same there.
I saw it on the Presidential debate or the CNN oil story. I thought it was stated as barrels but hey,it could have been gallons. Not a number I could really relate it to. Just a shockingly large #.
you: And maybe a longer growing season and waterfront property in Nevada.
me: If you really think GW and sea-level rise are that serious that you'll lose the house and property in the next few decades, I'll bail you out before this becomes widespread knowledge. I'll take the normal hurricane risk. My best offer - $25,000, and I won't even ask for an inspection!
Where bush is at fault is, he goes on tv pushing ethenol and promising to reduce use of gasoline in the US by 20%. ****
Well, if you blended in 15% ethanol into all gasoline, that would give you 15% less "gasoline" right there. The other 5% comes from higher fuel sales in his mind(less mpg on E85 = more fillups), most likely.
Yes, that's unfortunately how career politicians think. Make a safe soundbyte that looks like it means something when it really is just fiddling with the existing data.
Oh - there will be ONE good thing from higher corn prices. Expect to see all high fructose corn syrup to be replaced with sugar in the next few months. They used HFC in foods and drinks for the last decade or so because it was 20% less expensive than sugar. When their bottom line in at stake, they'll switch back to sugar as soon as the current stockpiles run out.
Oh - and maybe another. Most of the U.S. corn supply goes right now to livestock. But the thing is, they can be fed any grass or grain instead. If the corn, which is almost entirely genetically modified now,(80%+) all goes to fuel, then we might see healthier and better tasting cows and chickens as a result.
As I recall, that when usage went down in the 70's, and we all bought those first Japanese cars to get better gas mileage, the price of an OPEC barrel of oil went up. So even if we get better gas mileage now, it may cost the same (or more) as we now pay. Those OPEC country rulers aren't going to decrease their life styles. They'll get the same price for less production like they did in the 70's. BTW I had a 1976 Ford E150 with 2 gas tanks. It held 18 gallons in one and 25 gallons in the other. I filled it up, put on locking gas caps, bought a motorcycle and a siphon pump. I pumped the gas from the E150 to a gas can and then used the can to fill my motorcycle. The motorcycle got about 45 mpg. Why motorcycles aren't efficient is that rear tires wore out at about 5000 miles, front tires wore at about 7500 miles. Of course, I ran at full speed for some of those miles. One of my motorcycles topped out at 145, the other topped out at 135. I had a full face Bell Star helmet. I put Shark's teeth (like those on the WWII Flying tigers) with reflective tape over the part of the helmet that covered my mouth. The legal requirement was for 2 sq. inches of reflective tape on helmets. I had much more than that. I had some real adventures on my motorcycles. It's amazing I survived 3 of them.
If you really think GW and sea-level rise are that serious that you'll lose the house and property in the next few decades...
I'll do that in any case, given my mortality And it's doubtful my house on LI will be at risk in that timeframe, or even lose its value, but thanks anyway!
It's my grandchildren I'm concerned about (tho none yet) or maybe theirs. I'm sure you care about yours too, regardless of your professed POV :-P
As I recall, that when usage went down in the 70's, and we all bought those first Japanese cars to get better gas mileage, the price of an OPEC barrel of oil went up.
Actually, the opposite happened. Just as oil price peaked and US cars' efficiency rose from 19 mpg to just over 25 mpg (in 1980) the price of oil dropped. By 1984-85 oil had dropped from a high of almost $40/bbl to around $10 (unadjusted $). The principle of economic elasticity had been demonstrated. OPEC revenue had been dropping. And yes, that put the skids on our "will to improve", to our detriment.
Those OPEC country rulers aren't going to decrease their life styles.
They hope not, but they are not going to raise prices so high as to make us get smart about efficiency again, they're no dummies. Hmmmm, what does that make us.
Guess you got lucky with the motorcycles, too high risk for me
Oh, and I do my bit for GW by sailing my boat. Nice clean wind power. Mostly.
Yes, that's unfortunately how career politicians think
I agree, conservation by politians is just gimmicks and an exercise in PR. Here's another blatant example -
You know those electronic signs on Fwys that say "Accident at LBJ and Midway - try alternative route" or "Stranded? Call 972-555-1212 for help"? I am sure you have those things in your cities, too. Every once in a while, I see them post something like "Today is Ozone day! Try ride sharing".
I don't know who writes them, but I say to myself - why couldnt they think of this yesterday and put on "Tomorrow is ozone day ..."? If I am reading the sign, I am already on the road. What am I expected to do now? Pull out my cell phone and call the co-worker? "Hi, I know we are more than half way to work, but lets go back home and try ride sharing, today is ozone day! We can tell the boss why we are late - we had to go back home to save the planet". So much for conservation. Grrrrrr
Sorry for the rant. All this talks of conservation without really meaning anything just makes me sick.
... then we might see healthier and better tasting cows and chickens as a result.
Hey, it's a small chance, but people who raise livestock are all about the price. With corn prices going up fast, who know s - maybe they'll start feeding them more grass and hay instead?
I cringe when I see those guys in the 21 ft bass bats go by at 70. They are only getting 3-3.5 at that speed. Seeing less and less of them with $3 gas. I'll have the lake to myself at $4!
Have you thought about beer? If we all consume less beer, prices will come down and the cows can have it and become tastier. I heard thats what they do in Japan. The connoisseurs here can comment, I think they are called "Kobe" or something. The beef is tasty and to cook it, you just drop the slices in a pot of boiling water, and they are done in 30 seconds.
OTOH, we could drink all the beer ourselves and forget about driving and the high gas costs. Wonder which is better for the economy.
That is great news. Good article, thanks for pointing. Quick question - does anybody know what 45mpg on hwy will translate to in city mode for a diesel vehicle? Just an estimate, I know it will depend on my driving habits.
There seems to be a breakdown in communication. I responded to your post, which stated high gas prices are driving up the price of food and you respond with links saying ethanol production is the major contributor. They're totally unrelated. I never stated that our current ethanol policies weren't impacting food prices. In fact, I've always taken the position that this push for ethanol is a boondoggle with a lot of hidden costs.
Historical data shows a very limited link between fuel costs and retail food prices. In the last 10 years food prices have increased at a 2.4% annual rate. Oil prices are about 600% what they were in 1997 and gasoline prices are 300%.
I've read that the U.S., with 5% of the Earth's population, consumes 25% of many of the Earth's natural resources, and that includes petroleum products, water, etc. I know that we are a rich and industrialized country- but 5 times? Could be that we'd be way better off with just a 3 times-maybe.
But so much of our lifestyle is predicated on cheap resources- be it the size and power of the cars we drive, the size of the houses that we live it, the big yards that they are situated on, the long commutes to work- you get the picture. Face it, we've been drunk on cheap resources, the hangover if/when they are not so cheap may not be so pleasant.
We might not be all that successful...depends on your time frame for judging...dinosaurs were very successful gazillions of years)...Hitler was very successful (12 years)...the steam car was very successful (ten years)...the dot.com boom was very successful...(two years).
Solar Prius would only save about $250/year (45mpg to 60 mpg, $3/gal, 15,000/yr), so it would take 10 years to pay it off, not the 2-3 mentioned. That's the problem with solar, the energy per square foot just isn't that great.
I think the USA is living on borrowed time right now. Much of the world resents what we have and are willing to kill us to get it. We are living off of military spending as we blog. Not much else to support or decadent lifestyle.
I think a Hummer with a submachine gun will be a good vehicle for the future. Don't buy the gas just take it.
it's good to see you're taking the position you are on ethanol. you seem like a VERY informed individual. some people think we can grow our way out of a fuel situation...
i was really trying to make the point that with the increases in food, transportation, and fuel costs, there will come a point where additional taxation while causing people to consume less, will negatively impact us.
it's a simplistic point, i guess you've all covered before.
however, i don't believe it to be a myth that fuel cost increases won't be passed along in increases in products, food, transportation, energy, etc. etc.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with consumption per se. The countries consuming less than us are not doing it by choice. If the US cut back on consumption in all likelihood it would have a negative impact on many poorer countries. For instance if we could magically stop consuming oil it would benefit us tremendously. Probably not so good for the oil producing countries, which would otherwise have third world status. As you probably know, we have an enormous trade deficit. That represents our consumption sending money out to the rest of the world.
Again, nothing wrong with consumption. The problem is consuming something that isn't being replenished and having no plan in place for what to do when its gone.
That's the problem with solar, the energy per square foot just isn't that great.
With the exception of nuclear and tidal energy everything is solar. The gas you are burning in your vehicle is converted solar energy. While it's true that solar panels aren't all that efficient (15-18%) they are far more efficient than plants. 1 acre of solar panels will produce enough electricity in a year to power a vehicle for over 7 million miles. That same acre planted with rapeseed/canola will produce 200 gallons of bio-diesel. Maybe 8,000 miles of driving. So the efficiency of solar isn't the issue, it's the cost of the conversion and storage devices.
I'm not a big fan of putting solar panels on automobiles. It seems wasteful because if a solar panel isn't oriented correctly it won't produce near the amount of electricity. The very nature of an automobile moving around and driving through shade isn't consistent with this. A person would get a better payback from his solar investment by erecting it on his property and feeding the grid. Then when he gets home he can charge his EV.
you: For instance if we could magically stop consuming oil it would benefit us tremendously. Probably not so good for the oil producing countries, which would otherwise have third world status.
me: If "we" is only the U.S., the price of oil and gasoline would start dropping significantly. When the price of gasoline drops by a 1/3 or 1/2 around the rest of the world, people who use it sparingly will start using more.
One of the major points of the cost of gasoline in the U.S. that isn't pointed out much here is the value of the American $ relative to other currencies. For example:
If oil is $70/bbl and goes up 10% next year to $77/bbl, the U.S. consumer pays 10% more; if the dollar goes down 10%, the oil producing nations purchasing power has just stayed the SAME, despite getting 10% more $. People in Europe who have seen their currency go up 10%, have noticed no change in the price of oil. Take a look at what's been happening to the $ and then consider what I just said.
You'll see that our pain at the pump is tied to the sttrength of our currency, keeping the cost changes of oil and gasoline muted internationally where their currencies are strong, and affecting the U.S. consumers more.
Solar would never work in the great Northwest. maybe there we need some panels that convert the kinetic energy of raindrops into electricity.
It's a shame that they can't find a way to convert the heat buildup that a car experiences sitting in the hot sun, into energy. When you think of all that heat building up in the interior, plus the sheetmetal heating up, I'm sure there's gotta be a way to make use of that. Not a quick and easy way, but a way.
Because of the weak dollar there is a very real chance that oil, at least out of the Middle East, will eventually be priced in Euros. If/when that happens a 10% reduction in our currency will result in a ~10% increase in price.
Drill in Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico, off the California coast, expand the Alberta tar sand operation, expand current oil field operations, not to mention oil fields in Russia, Central Asia, the Spratly Islands, sub-Saharan Africa, etc, etc, etc.
But wait, there's more...
Like coal gasification plants. America has some of the world's largest reserves of coal. And we can turn coal into diesel, which can then be refined into gasoline.
D'oh, there's even more, too. Like thermal depolymerization. That can take any organic waste and convert it into a light oil, which can be refined into gasoline as well. Imagine how much gasoline we could get from converting all our major cities sewage treatment plants into thermal depolymerization facilities.
Not to even mention that most of the price increase for gasoline is currently driven by our lack of refining capacity, NOT a lack of oil.
For America's demand for gasoline has increased over the years, but our ability to turn oil into gasoline has stagnated at 1982 levels.
But refineries are bad, M'kay. They're stinky, and ugly, and yeah, like bad for the environment or something. But we still want to fill up our Ford Excursions with gasoline. Which comes from that same refinery we don't want.
Uhhh, yeah. That makes a lot of sense there.
Here's an idea... If you don't want a refinery, then you don't want it's product. So we simply bar the sale of gasoline to people that oppose the production of gasoline.
Which leaves plenty for those that want the product.
:mad:
But all this is too much for most. ANWR = 2 months of US oil consumption is all most can handle.
As if we'd suddenly stop using all other oil except ANWR.
Comments
We need to get her into rehab ASAP. Where's the leadership?
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
...if every U.S. car got only 1 more mpg it would save 375,000 barrels of oil per day.
Maybe a little less, but about right. At 380M gal/day and an avg of 25 mpg, we travel about 9.5B miles/day. At 26 mpg, we'd use around 365M gal/day, or around 4% less.
edit: I see tpe's post, same thing...
...yet no one will broach the idea of increasing the supply.
Build more refineries; drill for more oil; and construct coal gasification and thermal depolymerization facilities.
I believe we have discussed this before, quite a few times. When the crude price comes down, the gas price at the pump doesnt. Apparently the cost stays up due to a lack of US refining capacity.
The oil companies are not interested in building new refineries 'cause there is little return on investment. We do not want to conserve gas, either, as is apparent on this thread. We want to tow our 3mpg boats, drive at 75mph, and proudly cheer at NASCAR. So it is pretty much the politics of oil - call it price gouging or whatever.
I read a post of "ahhhhh, gas is coming down to $3.50". That is our classic reaction. Let the price shoot up to $5/gal for a month and bring it back slowly to $4.50, everybody will be happy and relaxed. I think the oil companies have studied the mass hysteria and these sentiments really well. Good for their shareholders.
I think a check on oil price will be achieved only when the oil price hits the bottom lines of other corporations (reduced retail and home sales, etc). Then they will be fighting on how to slice the pie of public money with their lobbies in Washington. May be we will see a few new refineries at that point.
But since oil usage or at least the demand will still be increasing, it would be a very, very short-term fix.
Aint gonna happen, IMO. This is really a war about control of the worlds energy resources (and oil $), I agree with you there. But as the Chinese consumption (and auto industry) grows, they will be in direct conflict with the US. They are already getting into deals with Canada, scouting the African nations for drilling/refining rights. Dont ask me for references, I read them on the news a while back. The US may not be willing to give China all that control.
Will be interesting to watch what happens when populous countries like China and India want their per capita gas (energy) consumption to be at par with Americans. Price of gas going through the roof? More wars? Only time will tell.
Well, it depends on what the "problem" is that one wants to "fix". If it's high gas price in the US, yes, I doubt that a one-time 1 mpg drop would do that much by itself....but you do have to remember that reducing the 4% global increase in demand to zero for as many years as you can increase the efficiency by the amount globally will keep prices from rising. Of course, you'd have to match that efficiency in the non-transportation sectors to do that.
But that might not be the thing that needs fixing. Some would argue that a higher price is to embrace, not recoil from, since it will spur development of what we really need, alternative fuels. In that case, it just buys us some time to come up with the alternative, before the price rises so high as to be disruptive...and, of course, that's what will happen...we won't run out of oil, it will just get really expensive. And by then, we'll either have an alternative or we'll implode.
And maybe a longer growing season and waterfront property in Nevada
My comments about Iraq were simply to imply we have far too small a force, and allow too much freedom while we're still trying to gain control (is that like allowing mail during a prison riot?). My post also was that we're fighting in Iraq mainly to deter it being used as a base for terrorism; Afghanistan has no oil and we're doing the same there.
me: If you really think GW and sea-level rise are that serious that you'll lose the house and property in the next few decades, I'll bail you out before this becomes widespread knowledge. I'll take the normal hurricane risk. My best offer - $25,000, and I won't even ask for an inspection!
****
Well, if you blended in 15% ethanol into all gasoline, that would give you 15% less "gasoline" right there. The other 5% comes from higher fuel sales in his mind(less mpg on E85 = more fillups), most likely.
Yes, that's unfortunately how career politicians think. Make a safe soundbyte that looks like it means something when it really is just fiddling with the existing data.
Oh - there will be ONE good thing from higher corn prices. Expect to see all high fructose corn syrup to be replaced with sugar in the next few months. They used HFC in foods and drinks for the last decade or so because it was 20% less expensive than sugar. When their bottom line in at stake, they'll switch back to sugar as soon as the current stockpiles run out.
Oh - and maybe another. Most of the U.S. corn supply goes right now to livestock. But the thing is, they can be fed any grass or grain instead. If the corn, which is almost entirely genetically modified now,(80%+) all goes to fuel, then we might see healthier and better tasting cows and chickens as a result.
So even if we get better gas mileage now, it may cost the same (or more) as we now pay.
Those OPEC country rulers aren't going to decrease their life styles. They'll get the same price for less production like they did in the 70's.
BTW I had a 1976 Ford E150 with 2 gas tanks. It held 18 gallons in one and 25 gallons in the other. I filled it up, put on locking gas caps, bought a motorcycle and a siphon pump. I pumped the gas from the E150 to a gas can and then used the can to fill my motorcycle.
The motorcycle got about 45 mpg.
Why motorcycles aren't efficient is that rear tires wore out at about 5000 miles, front tires wore at about 7500 miles. Of course, I ran at full speed for some of those miles. One of my motorcycles topped out at 145, the other topped out at 135.
I had a full face Bell Star helmet. I put Shark's teeth (like those on the WWII Flying tigers) with reflective tape over the part of the helmet that covered my mouth. The legal requirement was for 2 sq. inches of reflective tape on helmets. I had much more than that.
I had some real adventures on my motorcycles. It's amazing I survived 3 of them.
I'll do that in any case, given my mortality
It's my grandchildren I'm concerned about (tho none yet) or maybe theirs. I'm sure you care about yours too, regardless of your professed POV :-P
Actually, the opposite happened. Just as oil price peaked and US cars' efficiency rose from 19 mpg to just over 25 mpg (in 1980) the price of oil dropped. By 1984-85 oil had dropped from a high of almost $40/bbl to around $10 (unadjusted $). The principle of economic elasticity had been demonstrated. OPEC revenue had been dropping. And yes, that put the skids on our "will to improve", to our detriment.
Those OPEC country rulers aren't going to decrease their life styles.
They hope not, but they are not going to raise prices so high as to make us get smart about efficiency again, they're no dummies. Hmmmm, what does that make us.
Guess you got lucky with the motorcycles, too high risk for me
Oh, and I do my bit for GW by sailing my boat. Nice clean wind power. Mostly.
I don't know about the taste but most of the chickens and cows I eat aren't too healthy.
I agree, conservation by politians is just gimmicks and an exercise in PR. Here's another blatant example -
You know those electronic signs on Fwys that say "Accident at LBJ and Midway - try alternative route" or "Stranded? Call 972-555-1212 for help"? I am sure you have those things in your cities, too. Every once in a while, I see them post something like "Today is Ozone day! Try ride sharing".
I don't know who writes them, but I say to myself - why couldnt they think of this yesterday and put on "Tomorrow is ozone day ..."? If I am reading the sign, I am already on the road. What am I expected to do now? Pull out my cell phone and call the co-worker? "Hi, I know we are more than half way to work, but lets go back home and try ride sharing, today is ozone day! We can tell the boss why we are late - we had to go back home to save the planet". So much for conservation. Grrrrrr
Sorry for the rant. All this talks of conservation without really meaning anything just makes me sick.
... then we might see healthier and better tasting cows and chickens as a result.
Hahahaha I raise my glass to that.
Yeah, that was the "mostly". But I'm only 5 min from the bay and putting the sails up, so I rarely use more than a qt or 2 on a sail.
When I see those 4 ton boats pushing all that water out of the way with gas or diesel, I cringe.
OTOH, we could drink all the beer ourselves and forget about driving and the high gas costs. Wonder which is better for the economy.
Report: Honda To Pull Plug on Accord Hybrid
Remember the solar car talk last month?
Prius + solar power = more good news
Finally Idaho's Snake River Farms®, aka Agri Beef, is the largest producer of American raised Kobe beef.
http://members.tripod.com/~BayGourmet/wagyu.html
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/cpi.txt
and specifically with respect to ethanol / corn:
http://www.ydr.com/newsfull/ci_6049364
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-03-30-milk-prices_N.htm
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article1642746.ece
myth?
Historical data shows a very limited link between fuel costs and retail food prices. In the last 10 years food prices have increased at a 2.4% annual rate. Oil prices are about 600% what they were in 1997 and gasoline prices are 300%.
But so much of our lifestyle is predicated on cheap resources- be it the size and power of the cars we drive, the size of the houses that we live it, the big yards that they are situated on, the long commutes to work- you get the picture. Face it, we've been drunk on cheap resources, the hangover if/when they are not so cheap may not be so pleasant.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
I think a Hummer with a submachine gun will be a good vehicle for the future. Don't buy the gas just take it.
Well done. j/k :shades:
King crab is $10 a pound for the "normal" size legs around here. That begs the question - how much is jet fuel a gallon? There's no tax on it iirc.
it's good to see you're taking the position you are on ethanol. you seem like a VERY informed individual. some people think we can grow our way out of a fuel situation...
i was really trying to make the point that with the increases in food, transportation, and fuel costs, there will come a point where additional taxation while causing people to consume less, will negatively impact us.
it's a simplistic point, i guess you've all covered before.
however, i don't believe it to be a myth that fuel cost increases won't be passed along in increases in products, food, transportation, energy, etc. etc.
Again, nothing wrong with consumption. The problem is consuming something that isn't being replenished and having no plan in place for what to do when its gone.
With the exception of nuclear and tidal energy everything is solar. The gas you are burning in your vehicle is converted solar energy. While it's true that solar panels aren't all that efficient (15-18%) they are far more efficient than plants. 1 acre of solar panels will produce enough electricity in a year to power a vehicle for over 7 million miles. That same acre planted with rapeseed/canola will produce 200 gallons of bio-diesel. Maybe 8,000 miles of driving. So the efficiency of solar isn't the issue, it's the cost of the conversion and storage devices.
I'm not a big fan of putting solar panels on automobiles. It seems wasteful because if a solar panel isn't oriented correctly it won't produce near the amount of electricity. The very nature of an automobile moving around and driving through shade isn't consistent with this. A person would get a better payback from his solar investment by erecting it on his property and feeding the grid. Then when he gets home he can charge his EV.
me: If "we" is only the U.S., the price of oil and gasoline would start dropping significantly. When the price of gasoline drops by a 1/3 or 1/2 around the rest of the world, people who use it sparingly will start using more.
One of the major points of the cost of gasoline in the U.S. that isn't pointed out much here is the value of the American $ relative to other currencies. For example:
If oil is $70/bbl and goes up 10% next year to $77/bbl, the U.S. consumer pays 10% more; if the dollar goes down 10%, the oil producing nations purchasing power has just stayed the SAME, despite getting 10% more $. People in Europe who have seen their currency go up 10%, have noticed no change in the price of oil. Take a look at what's been happening to the $ and then consider what I just said.
You'll see that our pain at the pump is tied to the sttrength of our currency, keeping the cost changes of oil and gasoline muted internationally where their currencies are strong, and affecting the U.S. consumers more.
It's a shame that they can't find a way to convert the heat buildup that a car experiences sitting in the hot sun, into energy. When you think of all that heat building up in the interior, plus the sheetmetal heating up, I'm sure there's gotta be a way to make use of that. Not a quick and easy way, but a way.
To increase the flow of crude oil, we can:
Drill in Alaska, in the Gulf of Mexico, off the California coast, expand the Alberta tar sand operation, expand current oil field operations, not to mention oil fields in Russia, Central Asia, the Spratly Islands, sub-Saharan Africa, etc, etc, etc.
But wait, there's more...
Like coal gasification plants. America has some of the world's largest reserves of coal. And we can turn coal into diesel, which can then be refined into gasoline.
D'oh, there's even more, too. Like thermal depolymerization. That can take any organic waste and convert it into a light oil, which can be refined into gasoline as well. Imagine how much gasoline we could get from converting all our major cities sewage treatment plants into thermal depolymerization facilities.
Not to even mention that most of the price increase for gasoline is currently driven by our lack of refining capacity, NOT a lack of oil.
For America's demand for gasoline has increased over the years, but our ability to turn oil into gasoline has stagnated at 1982 levels.
But refineries are bad, M'kay. They're stinky, and ugly, and yeah, like bad for the environment or something. But we still want to fill up our Ford Excursions with gasoline. Which comes from that same refinery we don't want.
Uhhh, yeah. That makes a lot of sense there.
Here's an idea... If you don't want a refinery, then you don't want it's product. So we simply bar the sale of gasoline to people that oppose the production of gasoline.
Which leaves plenty for those that want the product.
:mad:
But all this is too much for most. ANWR = 2 months of US oil consumption is all most can handle.
As if we'd suddenly stop using all other oil except ANWR.
Riiiiiiight.
:confuse: