Mountain Buzz banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Why gas prices are so high

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
#21 ·
Agreed. The boating community does have a greater use of large vehicles than does the commuter in their Hummer. At some point I'd like to have a beater high clearance vehicle for those odd days when I need to pull a trailer or get to a rough put-in. On the days I don't NEED the oversized fuel guzzler I'll stick to my civic.
 
#22 ·
Probably the ideal setup for minimizing consumption.

***

There may be lots of oil, but any reputable geologist will tell you that the amount that is cost-effective to extract is only enough to last 30-150 years more at current rates of consumption. None of them are going to say that there are hundreds, let alone thousands of years worth of oil left that is actually practical to extract and use.
 
#23 ·
Re: there is no shortage of oil

Caspian said:
...but what of the fact that these are renewable sources that require much less maintenance than a coal plant or oil refinery? Would that not more than make up for the fact that the initial cost is heavy - esp. when oil starts hitting $100/bbl?
Click to expand...
The price comparisons I mention are levelized prices--meaning they include all costs of producing the electricity including paying off the equipment, paying for fuel, and paying for maintenance. I can only assume gasoline prices include the cost of maintenance on the oil refineries. And if they don't, someone's not doing their job.

I don't know what oil price it will take to make solar+hydrogen competitive. I just think there are other options that will make sense before solar+hydrogen. Even wind+hydrogen would make more sense. Solar will have to come down in price by 50% or more to really compete with other renewable options. Until then, it needs pretty hefty subsidies, or people that just like to do it because they think it's neat.

earthNRG said:
Electrolysis (using electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen gas) is not the only method used to produce hydrogen. Currently it is reformed out of natural gas. This still uses a fossil fuel that is of limited supply. Another option being worked on is direct extraction of hydrogen form water using a solar device. There are others working on designing bacteria that "exhale" hydorgen (much like how plant life "exhales" oxygen).

A hydrogen economy is not dead in the water just because electrolysis is inefficiant. There are other ways that may work out better.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are other ways to make hydrogen. I think we can rule out getting it from natural gas in the long term, since we're already seeing a natural gas shortage and it doesn't much reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Making it with biological processes is interesting, but will it work, when, and at what cost?

Electrolysis is not really that inefficient...80 or 90% is pretty darn good as far as energy processes go. But the losses don't end there. You also have to think about the efficiency of transporting the hydrogen (about 90%) and the fuel cell (50% in theory). The net efficiency of this is 38%. Not only are there losses, but there is a lot more equipment (some of it not yet available, or available only at very high prices): electrolyzer, hydrogen delivery infrastructure, and fuel cells.

Assuming you're starting with renewable electricity, why go through the added complication and losses of converting to hydrogen at all? The electric grid can get it to you at better than 90% efficiency. You can then charge a battery in your plug-in hybrid, which has an efficiency of about 64% considering losses in charging batteries and the efficiency of the electric motor. The net efficiency is 58%, and it can be done with technology and infrastructure that already exists.

I have my own cynical theory about why the notion of a hydrogen-powered cars continues to thrive:

1. It sound good, in a sound bite: "Hydrogen-powered car emits nothing but water!" But, you have to look past the headline to understand it either takes fossil fuels to produce that hydrogen (i.e., diminishing supply and resulting in emissions) or high-priced renewable energy.

2. Industry is behind it: "There's infrastructure to be built and new technologies to be developed. Who cares if this makes any sense? Bring on the government initiatives and funding!"

3. The Bush administration can use it as a stalling tactic: "We don't have to push car makers to improve fuel efficiency, and we can keep using oil, because we're working on the technology for hydrogen-powered cars. There's a bright future ahead!" Meanwhile, we do nothing, and if this doesn't work, Bush will be long gone before we figure it out.

Rather than focusing so much effort on hydrogen, why not start pushing up auto efficiency now, which will have an immediate effect, and pushing for plug-in hydrids, which are much closer to being a reality than fuel-cell cars?
 
#24 ·
who are the arabs

you bet I am...at least working very closely with them to control and maipulate prices along with other world leaders. Why did we invade Iraq AFTER Saddam was contained and BEFORE he could start selling his oil again....because his vast oil reserves were going to flood the market, and with him in power in Iraq the country was stable and the oil would have flowed....keeping prices and profits low. The Saudis are running out of oil, not the world, and King George owes them big time...why he doesn't push the Saudi-9/11 connection and keeps trying to make it sound like it was Saddam...it was Saudi money, Saudi citizens that did the attack.

The price of oil started climbing with the invasion and hasn't stopped. The oil companies want the prices high not only for vast profit, but also to bulldoze enviromental concerns about refineries, shipping, drilling in sensitive areas, and any other obstacle that might hamper the profits.
 
#25 ·
IkayakNboard,

Is this a troll? There are so many inaccuracies in you're writing I won't even attempt to address them all. But I'll take the bait.

Caspian's already noted that there aren't thousands of years of oil in the ground. We're finding oil at a slower rate than we're using it. US production peaked in the early 70s and has been diminishing ever since. Middle East oil will production will also peak someday; some have said it already has.

I don't think Bush is promoting the idea that we're running out of oil. He and his business partners wouldn't want to create too much of a panic that would make us strongly consider alternatives.

Finally, as I mentioned in a previous post, you can opt for your electricity to be provided by wind power and use that to charge a plug-in hybrid car. You don't have to use the standard fossil-fuel-generated electricity your utility provides.
 
Discussion starter · #26 ·
#28 ·
plenty of oil

There is plenty of oil, and as a previous poster stated we have the technology to make oil of almost any organic matter...thermal depolymerzation...a plant is already up and running converting turkey waste at a turkey procesing plant into oil. It is all just a big marketing scam.

And for all of you I'm greener than others...we are all just spoiled children burning up oil for our silly little pleasures. Hyppocrites all! I love my one ton diesel 4x4 van and so does everyone else who jumps in it for a gas guzzling ride to a river. The only complaint is when it is time to pay, and it is still cheap really. If you want to preach then get out of your plastic boat, your synthetic clothes, your car, quit buying food at the store, turn off the power, etc.

Why is it better to drive a suv to a river than to work? Is hauling a kayak 'greener' than hauling your kids to school?
 
#30 ·
Paul said:
Finally, as I mentioned in a previous post, you can opt for your electricity to be provided by wind power and use that to charge a plug-in hybrid car. You don't have to use the standard fossil-fuel-generated electricity your utility provides.
Click to expand...
This is not a viable option. We do not have the infrastructure to provide wind energy to the entire population. If everyone in the Denver metro area called Xcel tomorrow and said they wanted all their electricity from Wind, there is no way they would be able to comply. Also, batteries are evil and I don't think they should be used to power a car. Did you know that our current use of batteries (all batteries), although taking up less than .05% of the space at your local landfill, is accountable for 65% of the lead seeping into the soil? 75% of the Cadmium? Overall, battery disposal makes up almost 80% of the heavy metal toxins found at municipal waste sites, which leaks into our environment.

The bigger the battery, the more likely it is to explode. Whole house batteries that people who are "off the grid" use explode very frequently, and cause so much more environmental damage than the "grid" they are so against.

As far as us running out of oil in 30 - 150 years...BULL$#!+. We will NEVER run out of oil....as I mentioned, we can even make it from biomass (virtually any organic material, such as animal byproduct). Saying we are going to run out of oil is about as ignorant as saying Antarctica is melting and getting warmer, when the fact is the continent is getting colder.
 
#33 ·
And if they did use that as the ONLY source, are you going to pay $8 per gallon, or are you going to find alternative ways to travel? Most folks will opt for the latter, and since they will, the demand will not support use of that resource (unless there is some leap in technology between now and then). Yeah, there's lots of oil. There's also billions in gold in Wisconsin. But the reason no one goes for the gold in WI is because the ore isn't rich enough and the cost would exceed the price the market would bear. The same is true for oil - there's a lot, but the stuff that is cheap to extract is limited. Therefore, the market will eventually force the use of alternative energies. What we need to push for is getting those alternatives effective and affordable before the easy-and-cheap-to-extract oil runs out, whether that takes 30 years or 150.

I agree biomass sounds promising, but as far as widespread use, I don't know --- will that be cost effective vis-a-vis other alternatives? It will all come down to cost for the consumer...
 
#34 ·
Thermal depolymerization could potentially solve the (debatable) oil shortage issue. However, the consumption of the manufactured oil would have the same polution impacts that we currently have today. This is why I feel Nuclear and Geothermal are better options.

But, something completely new could pop up tomorrow making everything else obsolite. I once heard that a single bolt of lightning could power Denver for a month, if someone could just store that electricity. Maybe that will be the next breakthrough, who knows. In the meantime, I'll use what we have, and I won't feel bad doing so.

The good news is, the rate at which technology increases, increases by 25% every year. We have learned more about the world in the past 20 years, than all years prior. For every statistic and source, there is a contradicting statistic and source. For every study, there is a contradicting study saying something completely different. Deciding which is accurate is often a matter of opinion. Maybe we'll solve the problems we have created when our understanding of the earth and our technology increases. Or perhaps the pursuit of such IS the problem. Does it really matter though? The water is starting to flow down the hills.

"This just in, a study shows that breathing could be hazzardous to your health and it may kill you...however, a new study shows that not breathing may kill you faster."
 
#35 ·
IkayakNboard said:
If everyone in the Denver metro area called Xcel tomorrow and said they wanted all their electricity from Wind, there is no way they would be able to comply.
Click to expand...
No, we can't just flip a switch and get all of our power from wind, but I think it's highly unlikely we'll all be calling Xcel tomorrow. Not everyone wants to pay more. But if there is demand, they will work to meet it. They've added and continue to add more wind plants to meet customer demand and Amendment 37's requirements. Yes, we will someday reach a limit to the amount of energy wind can provide, but we're nowhere near the limit now.

IkayakNboard said:
Also, batteries are evil and I don't think they should be used to power a car. Did you know that our current use of batteries (all batteries), although taking up less than .05% of the space at your local landfill, is accountable for 65% of the lead seeping into the soil? 75% of the Cadmium? Overall, battery disposal makes up almost 80% of the heavy metal toxins found at municipal waste sites, which leaks into our environment.
Click to expand...
Batteries shouldn't be put in the landfill any more since they can be recycled. I think that batteries are covered under the Universal Waste law. This would mean that businesses are required to recycle them, while private citizens can (but don't have to) landfill them. I'm pretty sure that electric car batteries would be recycled by most reputable auto shops.

IkayakNboard said:
The bigger the battery, the more likely it is to explode. Whole house batteries that people who are "off the grid" use explode very frequently, and cause so much more environmental damage than the "grid" they are so against.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that likelihood of explosion was proportional to size of a battery, but I'll take your word for it. I guess that would be the fault of the charge controller. I doubt this happens all that frequently, and I'm sure cars can be designed to protect people from the explosion.

So, I still think plug-in hybrids (cars that can run on either electricity or gas from whatever the source) have a lot of promise, and very few drawbacks.
 
#36 ·
"Check out the big brain on Brad", nice debate, I am enjoying it. The only part I understood though was the flux capacitor, good thinking BSOE.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#37 ·
#38 ·
I'm sure they would design batteries to protect people from explosion. But think about how many car accidents there are every day. If the batter cracked during an accident, the chemicals would leak into the soil and pollute our water supply. I, for one, don't like the idea of lead and murcury in my food/water. Sure, they can be recycled, and yes, business are required to recycle them. But how many people do you think really take the Duracel out of their Colgate SpinBrush and drive it down to the local battery collection site? And the issue with battery size relating to increased chance of explosion is due to the fact that batteries create hydrogen gas, which is very volatile, and the larger the battery, the more gas it produces...therefore increasing the chance of an explosion if there is any sort of spark. Given the nature of electricity, and the fact that it often generates a spark, large batteries are known for explosions, especially towards the end of the charging cycle. The reason for this, is when the battery is almost “full,” the sulfuric acid and water electrolyte will begin to break down into hydrogen and oxygen—a very explosive combination. Sending lead and sulphuric acid everywhere.
 
#39 ·
I guess we shouldn't put batteries in our cars any more. Push starting would be a great alternative. Or a solar-powered starter. Wait, that wouldn't work at night. I know, we could seed clouds to start a thunderstorm, which would produce lighting which would strike a lightning rod on our car that leads to the batteriless starter. I think we'd need the flux capacitor in series with the lightning rod to absorb some of the energy so that the lightning wouldn't vaporize the car. Call the patent office!
 
#40 ·
The batteries in our cars now are designed much differently than the batteries of an electric car, or the batteries needed to have a solar/wind/hydro powered house (off the grid). But I do like your lightning idea! I still cast my vote for nuclear energy, and I feel with more research, it could be as safe as your lightning idea.

By the way, the total fission of one kilogramme of Uranium can provide the same energy as that released by burning three million kilogrammes of coal! In principle one can produce energy also from nuclear fusion: When two atoms combine to form a bigger atom, the final product has less mass than the sum of original masses and again the difference is converted to energy. However, although this is a cleaner resource than fission, and though the main ingredient, deuterium, is plentiful in sea-water, fusion is far from a reality now because of various technological hurdles. Back to my prior post...with increased technology, we may be able to overcome these hurdles...or we may destroy the earth by developing increased technology.

I'm not opposed to any research on alternative fuel sources. I think by exploring sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, we may be better positioned in the near future to have a source that is actually clean, abundant, and efficient. Now, I have to leave to get ready for my RiverDance performance tonight. Hope to see you all there.
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
About this Discussion
51 Replies
22 Participants
Last post:
earthNRG
Mountain Buzz
posts
684K
members
69K
Since
2003
A forum community dedicated to whitewater kayaking, boating, and rafting enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about safety, routes, gear, models, styles, gear swaps, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Whitewater Kayaking Rafting | Gear Talk Whitewater Rafting Kayaking | Gear Talk Rafting | Trip Planner