 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2008Oil prices expected to rise above $200 per barrel
The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that the supply of crude oil is limited and not increasing as fast as the demand. Jeff > The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will > push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that > the supply of crude oil is limited and not increasing as fast as the > demand. > > Jeff Oopsie: forgot the link: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/22/oil_study/ >> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oopsie: forgot the link: > http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/22/oil_study/ How about speculators buying and selling oil futures? >>> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >>> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How about speculators buying and selling oil futures? How about the evidence that the speculators are having a marked influence, say more than 10% of the price? Jeff > Hachiroku ???? wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jeff Why is 10% significant? Why should day traders/players/gamblers (pick a name you like) be allowed to have ANY effect on your household budget, just so they can live in huge mansions in fancy towns? Here are some of the players who are wrecking other people's household budgets: http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/hedgefunds/30342/ Here's an idea: Let's set up a new game at OTB parlors. Let any slob with enough money gamble on futures representing your family's 50 favorite grocery items. Let them gamble on individual items, or for lazy gamblers, there'll be a commodity representing "All Jeff's groceries" - sort of a mutual fund thing. If the OTB slobs end up bidding up the price of your groceries until the prices are quadrupled, that's what you and your wife have to pay at the grocery store. Would that be OK with you? >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > prices are quadrupled, that's what you and your wife have to pay at the > grocery store. Would that be OK with you? None of this demonstrates that hedge funds or oil speculation has had any significant impact on the price of oil. Jeff >>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Jeff Why do you believe they have not had any significant impact? I say 1% is significant, by the way. You say 10%. We're both right. >>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Why do you believe they have not had any significant impact? I have yet to see any evidence that these speculators have had this sort of impact that you suggest. Listing a bunch of hedge fund traders doesn't show that they affect the market. > I say 1% is significant, by the way. You say 10%. We're both right. >>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > of impact that you suggest. Listing a bunch of hedge fund traders doesn't > show that they affect the market. With few exceptions, every news article about oil prices mentions speculators. In that context, the word "speculators" refers to investors not related in any way to the oil industry. If you disagree, tell me what "speculators" refers to. >>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > With few exceptions, every news article about oil prices mentions > speculators. Actually, they don't. They say things like, "on fear of additional refinery problems, the price of gasoline spiked." However, they don't say who caused the price of gasoline to spike. > In that context, the word "speculators" refers to investors not > related in any way to the oil industry. Really? Or is it airline companies trying to lock in the price of jet fuel before it goes up even more? > If you disagree, tell me what "speculators" refers to. Now, if you were smart, you would use google to find articles like this, which do argue that speculators are responsible: http://www.financialpost.com/reports/oil-watch/story.html?id=535626 However, these articles don't convince me that it is the speculators or that there is something wrong with the market as it is. After all, both OPEC and the oil companies are motivated to blame someone else. Jeff http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_35/b3897042_mz011.htm >>>>>>> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > that there is something wrong with the market as it is. After all, both > OPEC and the oil companies are motivated to blame someone else. I'm not claiming that all factors aren't true (supply & demand, for instance). If oil companies were run by saints blessed by you and I, they'd still have to buy their raw material and tack on a profit. My beef is with extraneous factors which affect the price of the raw material. By the way, in another message, you said something about whether you should not be allowed to buy stock in oil companies. That was a few minutes ago, so you've had a chance to think about why that question is a mistake. Have you figured out why? >>>> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will >>>> push the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jeff Based on what I have seen at the pumps, at current prices, 10% would be $13 a barrel, and would translate into a $0.06 rise in the price of a gallon. Over a period of a couple weeks, this could reult in a $0.60 rise in the price of a gallon. Like Joe said, so someone can get rich for doing nothing? >> Hachiroku ???? wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Like Joe said, so someone can get rich for doing nothing? In all fairness, some speculators *do* need to deal with that nasty commute from Greenwich into lower Manhattan. >> Based on what I have seen at the pumps, at current prices, 10% would be >> $13 a barrel, and would translate into a $0.06 rise in the price of a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In all fairness, some speculators *do* need to deal with that nasty > commute from Greenwich into lower Manhattan. LOL! Of course! Who are we to deny them a hired limo rode?! Hey, if they can (and want to) pay for it, more power to them! > The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will push > the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that the > supply of crude oil is limited and not increasing as fast as the demand. > > Jeff I posted about this a month ago. I think some folks in many groups that I posted it in told me I was full of sh.t. I know a bit about oil because I live in one of the cities in Texas that has a lot of headquarters for oil. Also, my uncle works for one of the major oil companies. He himself acknowledges that oil is finite and that those in his company expect it to reach over 200 a barrel. When I posted about 200 a barrel, the cost of barrel was at 112... It is now 138? >> The price of oil is expected to rise above $200 per barrel. That will push >> the price of gasoline above $6 / gallon. The bottom line is that the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > When I posted about 200 a barrel, the cost of barrel was at 112... It is now > 138? Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. Jeff > Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. > > Jeff I think oil execs are right in one area. We need to drill at home while we change to other sources of energy. There is enough oil in the gulf, alone, to take care of our needs as we turn the other page. "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> Actually, I think $200 is conservative. And it won't come back down. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > while we change to other sources of energy. There is enough oil in > the gulf, alone, to take care of our needs as we turn the other page. One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of the U.S.! The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. Well, it is technically two people who won't allow access to it. They are Republican's and Democrats. I think that is about to change though. "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > are Republican's and Democrats. I think that is about to change > though. You think? Maybe when it reaches $5 a gallon? I heard on one news show, that for about $4.50 a gallon we could produce all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, so can't cars be converted to that cleaner burning fuel, cost effectively, at some point in this mess? > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm > not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? It comes from coal. Back in the 80's the government gave a grant to someone, I don't know who, to set up a fuel systhesis plant. Hearing this, the Saudis (or rather, OPEC) dropped the price of a barrel of crude from ~$50 to ~$10. If we start drilling for our own oil, the price across the board will drop. > I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, so can't cars be > converted to that cleaner burning fuel, cost effectively, at some point > in this mess? Sure. But the oilmen are getting rich, the lobbyists are getting rich, and the environuts are happy. Those of us that actually have ambitions and need to drive are taking it..er, on the chin...! All it takes is for the Sultan of Ooompapamaumau to sneeze tomorrow and the price of a barrel will double. > I heard on one news show, that for about $4.50 a gallon we could produce > all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm > not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? Coal. > I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, so can't cars be > converted to that cleaner burning fuel, cost effectively, at some point > in this mess? Cars can be converted to burn natural gas, cost effectiveness is determined by each persons definition of those words. CNG does not work well in cold climates, you'll give up most of the trunk space for the gas bottle and even then, range will be limited. Larger vehicles lend themselves better to CNG than smaller vehicles. The refueling infrastructure isn't in place, and in fact it may actually be destructured compared to 15 or so years ago... And once it's all said and done, the market speculators will just drive up the price of NG just like they're doing to petroleum. > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm > not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? I'd guess coal. But to convert to coal, you need lots of processing plants. That's lots of money to build the plants and lots of time (5 to 10 years) until the plants are working. > I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, so can't cars be > converted to that cleaner burning fuel, cost effectively, at some point > in this mess? That takes a couple of years to make the cars and lots of money for the infrastructure, like equipment to pump the natural gas into the natural gas tanks in the cars (which is at much higher pressure than the gas coming into one's house). Plus, how much spare natural gas do we really have? > I heard on one news show, that for about $4.50 a gallon we could produce > all the synthetic gas we'd ever need, right here in our own country. I'm > not sure what it would be produced from, does anyone know? That optimistic news probably came from companies in the tar sand or coal industry that are trying to attract investors. But even if the process was practical at $4.50, it would come at far more financial risk because its costs are so much higher than deriving it from crude oil. > I also heard that we have LOTS of natural gas, We don't have that much. > so can't cars be converted to that cleaner burning fuel, > cost effectively, at some point in this mess? No. Gasoline-burning cars are so clean now that natural gas won't give an improvement. Several years ago in Arizona, the legislature and then-governor passed a fiasco of a subsidy program for cars that could run from both gasoline or natural gas, and even the good conversions (the minority) didn't burn more cleanly on methane. >> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of the >> U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, it is technically two people who won't allow access to it. They > are Republican's and Democrats. I think that is about to change though. I'll drill through a Polar Bear's head to get oil. > I'll drill through a Polar Bear's head to get oil. But you also crushed a baby kitten, just to eat baby kitten brain. Evil, pure evil you are. >> I'll drill through a Polar Bear's head to get oil. > > But you also crushed a baby kitten, just to eat baby kitten brain. Evil, > pure evil you are. No, I prefer chilled monkey brain... > "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of the > U.S.! That's about one year's world usage. While it is obviously a lot, it would take several years to develop an oil field. And, several years until peak production is reached. So, at best, it would supply about 10% of the world's production for a while. So it will lower prices, but not that much. > The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. What percentage of Americans want the US to drill off the coasts? And, if the percentage is over 50%, why don't they vote for people who will make that happen? Jeff > > One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of > > the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 10% of the world's production for a while. So it will lower prices, > but not that much. Why is that one year's world usage? Who cares about the world's needs when we should be using that oil for the US needs. That will have the effect of lowering demand for the rest of the world and ultimately the price. >>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of >>> the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why is that one year's world usage? Who cares about the world's needs > when we should be using that oil for the US needs. It's a global market. The US is only a small part of that market, but in the supply of oil and the demand of oil. > That will have the > effect of lowering demand for the rest of the world and ultimately the > price. Only a little. jeff >>>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of >>>> the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > jeff Well, it is a world market, but the data I have heard of pegs the US supply at closer to 100 years than 1 year. I would suggest that the US producers can and should be compelled to supply the US market place and let the rest of the world deal with what's left with the remainder of the resources. If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a huge demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. I'm all in favor of profits for oil companies, but record profits ought to arise from record sales not record prices. There is something horribly wrong with the pricing stucture today. The problem I have is that I am dangerously close to demanding a regulated market place. I don't know what a reasonable profit would be on a gallon of gasoline, but for the sake of illustration, let's say if should be $0.05. If the oil companies are willing to make $0.04 to sell more gallons then so be it, but they can't make more than $0.05. If they are going to report record profits for any given quarter, they should do it because they also report record sales. The fact is, American consumption is flat to lower as compared to one year ago. Prices ought to be dropping as a result. But, it is a world market and there is more at play than US consumption. >>>>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of >>>>> the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > let the rest of the world deal with what's left with the remainder of > the resources. First tell us where this 100 years' worth of oil is. > If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a huge > demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. Really? Only a tiny percent of the electric power comes from oil. > I'm all in favor of profits for oil companies, but record profits ought > to arise from record sales not record prices. They have had near record sales. Plus, their profit margins are close to the profit margins of utilities. > There is something > horribly wrong with the pricing stucture today. The problem I have is > that I am dangerously close to demanding a regulated market place. And what should the pricing structure be? > I don't know what a reasonable profit would be on a gallon of gasoline, > but for the sake of illustration, let's say if should be $0.05. If the > oil companies are willing to make $0.04 to sell more gallons then so be > it, but they can't make more than $0.05. Well, Valero, an independent refiner lost money last quarter. Sunoco's profits were down, too. > If they are going to report > record profits for any given quarter, they should do it because they > also report record sales. Actually, they are having near record sales in terms of volume and record sales in terms of dollars. > The fact is, American consumption is flat to > lower as compared to one year ago. Prices ought to be dropping as a > result. But, it is a world market and there is more at play than US > consumption. At lot more. > >>>>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts of > >>>>> the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Really? Only a tiny percent of the electric power comes from oil. 25 percent is not tiny. -- > ...If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a huge > demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. Nukes would mostly affect coal, right? Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') >> ...If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a >> huge demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') If we used cars with really long extension cords or big batteries (i.e., plug-in hybrids).... >> ...If the USA moved towards nuke electric plants, this would take a huge >> demand off of the table, leaving more petrol for other markets. > > Nukes would mostly affect coal, right? Yeah, coal and natural gas. "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : >>>>> One expert was saying we have 65 BILLION barrels off the coasts >>>>> of the U.S.! [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > ought to be dropping as a result. But, it is a world market and there > is more at play than US consumption. Marxism? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx ""I do not see why industrialists should be considered at all," said Scudder. "When the masses are destitute and yet there are goods available, it's idiotic to expect people to be stopped by some scrap of paper called a property deed. Property rights are a superstition. One holds property only by the courtesy of those who do not sieze it. The people can sieze it at any moment. If they can, why shouldn't they?" "They should", said Claude Slagenhop. "They need it. Need is the only consideration. If people are in need, we've got to sieze things first and talk about it afterwards." - Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > consideration. If people are in need, we've got to sieze things first > and talk about it afterwards." - Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand What in Hell are you talking about? I don't think I took either one of those positions. Karl Marx called for an equal distribution of wealth, I only said that wealth should come from sales not from prices. Gasoline sales are down in this country (USA) relative to a year ago, yet oil company profits are up. This can only happen when price drives profit, not sales. I think any company should make as much as it can when the consumer of its products steps up to buy them. In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the other end of the line, and he can't escape the shoot through any reasonable means that he controls. The consumer can avoid entering the shoot for a while -- buy more efficient energy-consuming machines and appliances -- but he must eventually get in line to buy more energy, and since this is the case the producers of said energy have no restraints that keep them from abusing those consumers. Karl Marx was not about consumer protection, and consumer protection is not about taking property away from anybody. Neither of your quotes applies even remotely to anything I said. Petrol sales in the US may "be down" (I'm not sure what you mean by that, compared to the same quarter last year, maybe? I'd wanna see your reference before I bought into it) But global consumption has not waned in the least... we are a thirsty people. The only recent change is that the US is now not the only customer. Within recent memory about half of all the autos on the planet were in the US, but this is changing... the US demand no longer has the power to sway the market as it has in the past. You may see this as the invisible hand giving US the finger but it's really just a free market in action. Talk of killing the rich people and splitting up their stuff may sound nice within the context of a few oil execs, but the numbers indicate that all of the 5% of the global population that resides within the US is part of the top 10% wealthiest of the planet... So all the USofAliens would probably be targeted by any kinda of revolutionary redistribution program. That not withstanding there are probably a few oil execs whose heads belong on sticks for purely ethical reasons, but not all of thems is local boys. At the end of the day, the rising price of gas doesn't seem to be that big of a problem, certainly not the kind of problem that I would want the government to try to 'fix'. If you feel like you're spending too much on gas maybe you need to figure out a way that you can drive less. "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > of those positions. Karl Marx called for an equal distribution of > wealth, You see the quote above. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." You appear to be saying that because people "need" inexpensive gas, those with the abilities ( the oil companies ) should be forced by the government to limit their profits? Correct me if I misread what you were saying. > I only said that wealth should come from sales not from > prices. You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth comes from? > Gasoline sales are down in this country (USA) relative to a > year ago, yet oil company profits are up. So? Is "profit" a dirty word? Perhaps we should nationalize the oil companies and force them to operate without profit incentives? > This can only happen when > price drives profit, not sales. I think any company should make as > much as it can when the consumer of its products steps up to buy > them. That's what's happening now. If the consumers found an alternative source of fuel for their cars, they could tell the oil companies, OPEC etc., to pound sand. > In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that > matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the > other end of the line, and he can't escape the shoot through any > reasonable means that he controls. Nonsense. No one is forcing me to buy a thing, I can stop anytime. I can take a bus, I can walk, ride a bike, even maybe a horse. > The consumer can avoid entering > the shoot for a while -- buy more efficient energy-consuming machines > and appliances -- but he must eventually get in line to buy more > energy, No one is stopping anyone else from competing with oil, with another form of energy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUrB7KRvxUk http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ From Beck: Someone in another group pointed out that it takes energy to produce and recycle the aluminum-gallium alloy that runs this engine's reaction. Ok fine, so what about using nuclear plants for that? ESPECIALLY in their off-peak hours? Think maybe 11 PM to 6 AM? You could build processing plants right next to the nuclear plants and use the nuclear energy during off peak hours to process the AL-GA metals back into usable form for these engines? Interesting? http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/31/gb.01.html BECK: Now, from one incompetent government agency right to another. Last night, I told you how tenuous our foreign oil supply is and how we are just one world event away from $7-a-gallon gasoline. It is becoming ever clearer that we need to identify clean, realistic and domestic energy alternatives. Our continued way of life depends on it. The real story is, a Purdue University engineer and National Medal of Technology winner says he`s found a way to replace gasoline with -- get this -- water, but the U.S. Department of Energy is now standing in his way. As I`m sure you have figured out if you`ve watched this show for more than 10 minutes, I`m not exactly a genius, really even book smart, or really, quite honestly, all that literate, but even I understand that desperate times call for desperate measures, and anyone who says they`ve got a solution to our dependency on foreign oil deserves all the support that we can give them, especially if the answer lies in water. Energy independence is good for America, and you would think that the Department of Energy would know that. Now, if you`re already suspicious about the government being in bed with big oil and big business, the next few minutes not really going to help all that much. Professor Jerry Woodall is a professor at Purdue University, who is trying to develop this technology. Professor, talk down to me for a minute. How do you power a car with water? JERRY WOODALL, PHD, PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Well, you need to split it first. You need something that will take the hydrogen away from oxygen, and the way I do it is I make alloys of aluminum and gallium, two different elements. As you know, aluminum by itself doesn`t do anything when you put it in water, but if you add gallium to it, the gallium removes the oxide on aluminum and allows it to react with water. It will split water, forming hydrogen and aluminum oxide. So that`s how we do it. BECK: And you`re saying that the key to this is, you don`t actually need a pumping station. WOODALL: Right. I can carry my aluminum in the back of my car. BECK: And so who -- is the problem that nobody is going to make a lot of money on this? Is that what it is? WOODALL: Well, I think you can. The problem right now is that this is very new and, if I do say so myself, it`s revolutionary, and it takes time for revolutionary ideas to permeate society where they become recognized as useful things. BECK: OK, so the government is not helping you. They`re starting to withhold funding, is that accurate? WOODALL: Well, I wouldn`t say they`re withholding it. I haven`t had a chance to get any from them yet, but I`m not panicked yet, because it takes time to get people on board about new ideas. BECK: Yes. And what about private enterprise? Why not just go to private enterprise? WOODALL: Well, I`ve been doing that. I`ve actually started a small company with an entrepreneur in Indianapolis, and we`re going to try to brand this stuff on a small scale and let it grow from that, hopefully. BECK: OK. Now, do we have to change over? Can this power a regular combustion engine? WOODALL: Yes. As you probably already know, the major automobile companies have experimental vehicles running on hydrogen. And, remember, all I`m doing is I`m making a stored form of energy that will convert water into hydrogen on demand. BECK: OK. How long would it take? Let`s say, all of a sudden, our gas prices spiked up to $7. How long would it take for us to be able to have this technology and me to run my car with it? WOODALL: OK, that`s a good question. I`m not an economist, and I`m not a market guy. It will take -- so there will have to be some sort of infrastructure, because you can`t just throw aluminum cans into your trunk, although it`s a great idea. You will need to be able to make up cassettes or some form of this aluminum alloy that I make and add water to it in a vehicle, so it has to be engineered. If I had to guess -- so I`m quite confident that my grandchildren will be using aluminum in cars. Whether my older son will be using it any time soon, I`m not sure of, but it`s going to be done -- it`s all about money and the marketplace. BECK: All right, Jerry. Thanks a lot. That is "The Real Story" tonight. > and since this is the case the producers of said energy have > no restraints that keep them from abusing those consumers. Just the free market. > Karl Marx was not about consumer protection, and consumer protection > is not about taking property away from anybody. Neither of your > quotes applies even remotely to anything I said. <sigh> > You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth > comes from? Maybe for this one product, it wouldn't be such a bad idea. Name ten other products whose prices are determined daily in a gambling parlor, and which have such a powerful ripple effect throughout the economy. >> In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that >> matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nonsense. No one is forcing me to buy a thing, I can stop anytime. I > can take a bus, I can walk, ride a bike, even maybe a horse. Many people do not have a choice but to drive. So yes, they *are* forced to buy fuel. >> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >> comes from? > > Maybe for this one product, it wouldn't be such a bad idea. Name ten other > products whose prices are determined daily in a gambling parlor, and which > have such a powerful ripple effect throughout the economy. None are determined in a gambling parlor. However, please provide a better alternative with evidence that the alternative would be better, including back up the need for the controls. XOM, F, MSFT, GM, UNTD, GOOG, PPL, TGT, GE, WLMT, and the price that utilities pay for electricity in times of peak demand. >>> In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that >>> matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Many people do not have a choice but to drive. So yes, they *are* forced to > buy fuel. They are usually not forced to drive a Ford F150 or Hummer one a 50-mile commute each day. Thay have the option of getting a Prius or Civic hybrid and buy 10 or 15 gallons of fuel each week instead of every day. >>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>> comes from? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > None are determined in a gambling parlor. You don't like the words "gambling parlor", but as I taught you earlier, the commodities market is exactly that. When price movements are partially based on "fears" and "concerns" expressed by traders who are in no way connected with any oil-related company, we are dealing with nonsense. > However, please provide a better alternative with evidence that the > alternative would be better, including back up the need for the controls. Alternative to what? Hedge funds playing with oil prices? They serve no function other than to make money for a select group of investors in those funds, as well as the managers of the funds. The alternative is to close oil trading to non-related investors. There's no reason not to that you can describe. > XOM, F, MSFT, GM, UNTD, GOOG, PPL, TGT, GE, WLMT, and the price that > utilities pay for electricity in times of peak demand. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > commute each day. Thay have the option of getting a Prius or Civic hybrid > and buy 10 or 15 gallons of fuel each week instead of every day. We agree that some people could make a better choice of vehicle. But, no matter what you drive, you MUST buy fuel. >>>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>>> comes from? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You don't like the words "gambling parlor", but as I taught you earlier, the > commodities market is exactly that. The only thing that you taught me is that you don't know what you're talking about. > When price movements are partially based > on "fears" and "concerns" expressed by traders who are in no way connected > with any oil-related company, we are dealing with nonsense. You have yet to show: 1) Why these people shouldn't be allowed to trade. After all, these open markets are what drive the American economy and other free economies. 2) That these speculators have a marked influence on the price of oil. In other words, the people who are driving up the prices are the people who have a vested interested in the price of oil, like refiners, transportation companies and utilities, all of which buy energy futures. >> However, please provide a better alternative with evidence that the >> alternative would be better, including back up the need for the controls. > > Alternative to what? Hedge funds playing with oil prices? Alternative to an open market. If you don't think that hedge funds should be doing this, write to the SEC and your elected representatives, asking for proper regulation of the market. > They serve no > function other than to make money for a select group of investors in those > funds, as well as the managers of the funds. The alternative is to close oil > trading to non-related investors. Well, write your representives. > There's no reason not to that you can describe. >> XOM, F, MSFT, GM, UNTD, GOOG, PPL, TGT, GE, WLMT, and the price that >> utilities pay for electricity in times of peak demand. By the same argument, I shouldn't have been able to buy shares of XOM (ExxonMobil). >>>>> In the instance of gasoline (any energy product for that >>>>> matter), the consumer is herded through shoots to buy stuff at the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > We agree that some people could make a better choice of vehicle. But, no > matter what you drive, you MUST buy fuel. Gee, when I drive my bicycle, I buy my fuel at the grocery store. jeff >>>>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>>>> comes from? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 1) Why these people shouldn't be allowed to trade. After all, these open > markets are what drive the American economy and other free economies. Because their trades are often completely disconnected from reality. Example: Fears of renewed violence in a country which contributes next to nothing in terms of crude oil. > 2) That these speculators have a marked influence on the price of oil. In > other words, the people who are driving up the prices are the people who > have a vested interested in the price of oil, like refiners, > transportation companies and utilities, all of which buy energy futures. Let's stick to one financial entity which we KNOW is unrelated to the businesses you mentioned: HEDGE FUNDS Are you saying such speculators have ZERO effect on the price of oil? Yes or no? ZERO effect? >>> However, please provide a better alternative with evidence that the >>> alternative would be better, including back up the need for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be doing this, write to the SEC and your elected representatives, asking > for proper regulation of the market. I work in an open market - the grocery biz. My customers (chains & wholesalers) can buy from anyone they want and sell to anyone they want. Although there are commodity investments representing some grocery products, that arena has little or no effect on prices in my business. Do you know why there's little or no effect? While we're on the subject, what business are you in? It might help to know, in terms of providing analogies. >> We agree that some people could make a better choice of vehicle. But, no >> matter what you drive, you MUST buy fuel. > > Gee, when I drive my bicycle, I buy my fuel at the grocery store. > > jeff Gee...that's cute, but not an option for everyone. You know that. But you will now disagree. At how many grocery stores will you need to shop, between your place and Disney Land? >> We agree that some people could make a better choice of vehicle. But, no >> matter what you drive, you MUST buy fuel. > > Gee, when I drive my bicycle, I buy my fuel at the grocery store. > > jeff How does one factor in the cost of BUYING those cars against the difference in the amount of fuel used to drive 50 miles a day? ;) >>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>> comes from? > They are usually not forced to drive a Ford F150 or Hummer one a 50-mile > commute each day. Thay have the option of getting a Prius or Civic hybrid > and buy 10 or 15 gallons of fuel each week instead of every day. > How does one factor in the cost of BUYING those cars against the difference > in the amount of fuel used to drive 50 miles a day? ;) Total cost of ownership = cost of fuel + cost of vehicle + cost of insurance + cost of maintenance The cost of fuel = price per gallon * miles driven / mileage (in mpg) Jeff >>>> You want to dictate over the free market and legislate where wealth >>>> comes from? > >> They are usually not forced to drive a Ford F150 or Hummer one a 50-mile >> commute each day. Thay have the option of getting a Prius or Civic hybrid >> and buy 10 or 15 gallons of fuel each week instead of every day. > The real story is, a Purdue University engineer and National Medal of > Technology winner says he`s found a way to replace gasoline with -- get > this -- water, but the U.S. Department of Energy is now standing in his > way. > Professor Jerry Woodall is a professor at Purdue > University, who is trying to develop this technology. > JERRY WOODALL, PHD, PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Well, you need to split it > first. You need something that will take the hydrogen away from oxygen, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > will split water, forming hydrogen and aluminum oxide. So that`s how we > do it. This may be a better way of extracting hydrogen from water, but it still needs more energy than available from the hydrogen, and you don't help your case by claiming the government is trying to repress the research. "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote : >> The real story is, a Purdue University engineer and National Medal of >> Technology winner says he`s found a way to replace gasoline with -- get [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > This may be a better way of extracting hydrogen from water, but it > still needs more energy than available from the hydrogen, Doesn't matter, just use nuclear to generate it for cars. > Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand Why did you quote an adultress who wanted to commit murder? "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote : >> Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand > > Why did you quote an adultress who wanted to commit murder? ? Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : >> "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N0one184@N0Where.com> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's about one year's world usage. Who says we have to export it? > While it is obviously a lot, it > would take several years to develop an oil field. And, several years > until peak production is reached. So, at best, it would supply about > 10% of the world's production for a while. So it will lower prices, > but not that much. Who says we have to export it? >> The enviro-extremists won't allow access to it. > > What percentage of Americans want the US to drill off the coasts? > And, if the percentage is over 50%, why don't they vote for people > who will make that happen? Stay tuned... People are fed up and it's only so long before they realize that they can't just blame the oil companies for this, that something else needs to be done. Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. I even heard that stabilizing the dollar against foreign currencies would, being much of these current prices are based on wild speculation, because our government is so far in debt and printing funny money as a way out. > Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Who says we have to export it? I have seen that, between oil and coal that could be turned into gasoline (and coal that can just be used as coal) we have enough energy right here for ~100 years. If we don't come up with some alternative in the next 10~20, we deserve everything we get. It's said we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, we have so much. The problems are that coal is difficult to extract; if you use a regular mine then the workers are in danger, and if you go with much safer strip mining the land where the mine is located is destroyed. Frankly, I'm not much of an environmentalist, so if strip mining means we get to keep our economy humming, then strip away! (Er, not you, the miners! ;) Again, the environmentalists step in with lawsuits and their lobbyists get new laws passed, and progress comes to a halt. >> While it is obviously a lot, it >> would take several years to develop an oil field. And, several years [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > because our government is so far in debt and printing funny money as a > way out. <...> > I have seen that, between oil and coal that could be turned into gasoline > (and coal that can just be used as coal) we have enough energy right here [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > environmentalist, so if strip mining means we get to keep our economy > humming, then strip away! (Er, not you, the miners! ;) That could be dangerous, particularly when the miners use sharp tools. However, destroying the land and the life on the land is short-sighted at best. Right now, a.sholes are destroying moutaintops in West Virgina and fouling up the land for coal. Extremely stupid. > Again, the environmentalists step in with lawsuits and their lobbyists > get new laws passed, and progress comes to a halt. That's far better than destroying our environment. Jeff > <...> >> I have seen that, between oil and coal that could be turned into [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Jeff I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >> hachiroku ???? wrote: >> <...> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... .....until YOUR neighborhood is destroyed by nasty mining operations. As long as it's far away where it doesn't affect you, you're cool with the idea. >> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... > > .....until YOUR neighborhood is destroyed by nasty mining operations. As > long as it's far away where it doesn't affect you, you're cool with the > idea. A good deal of our energy reserves are far away from anyone. And, if there is a major coal reserve in my back yard, I would gladly sell to the highest bidder... =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote : >>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And, if there is a major coal reserve in my back yard, I would gladly > sell to the highest bidder... We have enough nuclear energy to power the whole country for 2 billion years, all we have to do is build the plants. Once we had them up to 200% capacity of what we need for fixed power, the left over capacity could power cars. Build it and the technology will come. > =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > left over capacity could power cars. Build it and the technology will > come. If we have enough nuclear capacity to produce all the electricity we need, then the oil and coal reserves in this country could probably provide enough gasoline for ~150 years. If nobody figures out a solution before that, they deserve what they get. ...LONG before that... >>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And, if there is a major coal reserve in my back yard, I would gladly sell > to the highest bidder... That's because you know almost nothing..... >>>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That's because you know almost nothing..... He knows enough to have swatted your arse around like a little limp thang that you are.....  SignatureScott in Florida >>That's because you know almost nothing..... >> > He knows enough to have swatted your arse around like a little limp > thang that you are..... Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel... >>>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's because you know almost nothing..... You would sell to the lowest. I know better. I can heat with coal or fuel oil in my two homes in Pa. The cost to heat with coal is half that of oil. On average I use about five tons of coal verses 1,100 to 1,200 gallons of oil. In addition Anthracite coal burns cleaner than fuel oil >>>>> I'd rather get the coal than have my balls squeezed by Arabs... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You would sell to the lowest. I know better. > I can heat with coal or fuel oil in my two homes in Pa. The cost to > heat with coal is half that of oil. On average I use about five tons of > coal verses 1,100 to 1,200 gallons of oil. In addition Anthracite coal > burns cleaner than fuel oil Sounds good to me. How much is 5 tons of coal? > Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. Which is why the oil companies are not only not building new refineries, but closing existing ones. Nor will they sell the existing refinery that is being closed to anyone. They want the capacity off-line. >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. > > Which is why the oil companies are not only not building new refineries, > but closing existing ones. Nor will they sell the existing refinery that > is being closed to anyone. They want the capacity off-line. How true! Local refinery was sold to Shell and they wanted to close it down saying the cost to upgrade and rebuild would be prohibitive. Luckily, some representatives got involved and the plant is still operating. Wonder where all the billions they are making are going if not to building, remodeling, or searching? B~ > >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > B~ Go to CSPAN, watch the video of the hearings with big oil that was on this week. CEO's on the hot seat, actually their set wasn't too hot. They handled themselves quite well. -- >> >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >this week. CEO's on the hot seat, actually their set wasn't too hot. >They handled themselves quite well. ,,,and they told the idiots that a big part of the problem was our Congress... SignatureScott in Florida Did you EVER see a report from ANY of those Committees? You will not see any in the media, you need to search the Congressional Record for their report. You never see the Congress doing ANTHING to increase our supply to help meet our demand. Dims that control Congress pretend to be the party of the "workingman." In reality they are the party of the "non-working men". That's sad; all they care about is buying your votes with taxes paid by those that work.. >>> >> Oh, and increasing refineries would lower our prices here too. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > ,,,and they told the idiots that a big part of the problem was our > Congress... > Did you EVER see a report from ANY of those Committees? You will not see > any in the media, you need to search the Congressional Record for their [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Come January 2009 you will be seeing a whole bunch of reports. If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all about supply and demand, like all of the previous reports. "BUT, we Dims tried to stop crude from going to $200, we shut down refineries and oil wells to cut carbon admissions and we doubled the taxes on big oil and spent trillions on the newer cleaner much more expensive alternate energy sources, and we even shut down those dangerous nuclear power plants, hoping to reduce our dependence on imported oil and lower the cost of a barrel of crude but we could not because of what the Bush administration did, sorry" LOL On May 24, 9:42 pm, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote: > Did you EVER see a report from ANY of those Committees? You will not > see [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Come January 2009 you will be seeing a whole bunch of reports. > If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all about > supply and demand, like all of the previous reports. "BUT, we Dims tried [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - We have better things to do - impeach bush & cheney, report how they stole 2 elections, packed the justice department, politcized all departments of the government, and maybe put Karl Rove in a cell for a few years. Download an mp3 file of "It's Over" by Roy Orbison and just put it on an endless loop. > Come January 2009 you will be seeing a whole bunch of reports.- Hide quoted text - >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >departments of the government, and maybe put Karl Rove in a cell for a >few years. I suggest you get busy. At least an impeachment would be fun to watch! ....getting the popcorn SignatureScott in Florida Please tell us how many cups of Cool-Aide do you drink in one day and what is the color of the sky in YOUR world? LOL On May 25, 3:34 pm, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote: > If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all about > supply and demand, like all of the previous reports. "BUT, we Dims tried [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > - Show quoted text - We have better things to do - impeach bush & cheney, report how they stole 2 elections, packed the justice department, politcized all departments of the government, and maybe put Karl Rove in a cell for a few years. Download an mp3 file of "It's Over" by Roy Orbison and just put it on an endless loop. > Please tell us how many cups of Cool-Aide do you drink in one day and > what is the color of the sky in YOUR world? LOL LOL! > On May 25, 3:34 pm, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote: >> If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all about [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > Download an mp3 file of "It's Over" by Roy Orbison and just put it on an > endless loop. "edspyhill01@yahoo.com" <edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote : > We have better things to do - impeach bush & cheney, report how they > stole 2 elections, packed the justice department, politcized all > departments of the government, and maybe put Karl Rove in a cell for > a few years. Make sure to wear a tinfoil hat while you do all that. Bush has orbiting mind-control lasers beaming down republican thoughts. >> Come January 2009 you will be seeing a whole bunch of reports.- Hide >> quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We have better things to do - impeach bush & cheney, report how they > stole 2 elections Impeach them for what? Up until now, you haven't played the k00k card, but you're starting to sound like the starry-eyed morons that live in my area. Put the blunt down and rejoin reality, please. "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> wrote : > If the Dims get the Presidency the first report will say it's all > about supply and demand, like all of the previous reports. "BUT, we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and lower the cost of a barrel of crude but we could not because of > what the Bush administration did, sorry" LOL I'm waiting for them to start suggesting nationalizing the oil companies. ""I do not see why industrialists should be considered at all," said Scudder. "When the masses are destitute and yet there are goods available, it's idiotic to expect people to be stopped by some scrap of paper called a property deed. Property rights are a superstition. One holds property only by the courtesy of those who do not sieze it. The people can sieze it at any moment. If they can, why shouldn't they?" "They should", said Claude Slagenhop. "They need it. Need is the only consideration. If people are in need, we've got to sieze things first and talk about it afterwards." - Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand >I'm waiting for them to start suggesting nationalizing the oil companies. You must have taken the week off - Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D CA) was in on the "Grill Big Oil Fest" and was at a loss for words in mid tirade, couldn't grasp the word "nationalize" - and after phumphering around for a while she used the term "Socialize" instead - a rather Freudian slip, and quite telling. If we get a (strike)Socialist(strike) Democratic administration and Legislature at the same time, the government might well think they can solve all out energy problems by Nationalizing the oil companies - and if you think the situation is bad now, you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet. The real fix: We need to start carefully drilling in ANWR right NOW - go really slowly so they don't spill or foul anything - build a base-camp this summer, engineer the ice-road and bring in the heavy gear through the winter, and start the exploratory drilling in earnest next summer. Invent a double-wall pipeline out to civilization. Allow for long-term oil purchase contracts, so the speculators in the Spot Market aren't the ones driving the price of oil up, up, up for everyone. Large oil consumers like airlines, marine shipping and railroads have long bought a large portion of their fuel in long term contracts, and that works great to moderate prices in the short term - but when the contracts expire and they can't get a new one at a reasonable price they're going to get raped like the rest of us. Offshore drilling - slant-drill from a few semi-permanent platforms. Go to town with Wind - Solar - Geothermal - Clean Coal - Nuclear. Get away from oil wherever possible, if it isn't a lubricant come up with another fuel source. Trash incineration for part of the fuel for fluidic-bed "clean coal" steam electric plants then stack scrubbers afterwards - kill three or four birds with one stone, reduce landfills, destroy small amounts of hazmat, and reduce usage of oil or natural gas. Encourage a few new refineries - and allow accelerated depreciation if they're afraid that they'll be made obsolete before their time. Get working on cellulosic ethanol from wild field grasses, and production plantings of canola/rapeseed for BioDiesel. We're going to screw up the economy if we keep using foodstocks and food producing land to raise corn for Ethanol feedstocks - even though the corn can be used for animal feed after distilling, it isn't human food grade anymore. --<< Bruce >>-- Bruce L. Bergman <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote : >>I'm waiting for them to start suggesting nationalizing the oil >>companies. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > phumphering around for a while she used the term "Socialize" instead > - a rather Freudian slip, and quite telling. LOL! > If we get a (strike)Socialist(strike) Democratic administration and > Legislature at the same time, the government might well think they > can solve all out energy problems by Nationalizing the oil companies > - and if you think the situation is bad now, you ain't seen NOTHIN' > yet. Oh but I have. I was around when Commissar Carter pulled his marxist plan, back in the 70's. Wage and price freezes, windfall profits taxes on gas. I remember the long lines at the gas stations as the supply dried up. And some people still remember the 5 year plans "back in the USSR", when they'd tell the factories to make 20 million pairs of size 10 shoes and the people who wore other sizes would have to wear size 10, no matter how big their feet were. There's only one legitimate purpose for government and anytime it strays from those boundaries, there's hell to pay. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785) "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may only resort to force only against those who start the use of force." -- Galt's Speech, “Atlas Shrugged”, 1957 "Since the protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of a government, it is the only proper subject of legislation: all laws must be based on individual rights and aimed at their protection." -- Ayn Rand > Go to town with Wind - Solar - Wind power only works when there' wind and solar only works when the sun shines. >Geothermal - Clean Coal - Nuclear. Nuclear. We could power everything with it and tell OPEC to go pound sand ( to put it politely, or to shove their oil where the sun don't shine ) >Bruce L. Bergman <blnospambergman@earthlink.invalid> wrote : >>>I'm waiting for them to start suggesting nationalizing the oil >>>companies. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >I remember the long lines at the gas stations as the supply dried up. Dad was a salesman - we had the big white-on-blue "C" windshield sticker on the LTD Station Wagon he used to haul his sample cases around. Commercial Use vehicle, meaning he didn't have to follow the every-other-day rationing plan. Artificial control of supply doesn't work - any system you come up with can and quickly will be gamed. Look at Prohibition. The only way to drop prices is to increase supply (build more refineries or enlarge the existing ones) prevent collusion and artificial constraints (like the scheduled semi-annual fires at the existing refineries that cause "unexpected" shutdowns and spike the prices) and/or decrease demand. >And some people still remember the 5 year plans "back in the USSR", when >they'd tell the factories to make 20 million pairs of size 10 shoes and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Wind power only works when there' wind and solar only works when the sun >shines. But when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, make use of it. And that includes putting wind farms where they'll work best and go in for a reasonable cost, despite what the "Beautiful People" in Hyannisport, Martha's Vineyard, and Malibu think. The Malibu and Santa Barbara Illuminati crowd just got done blocking the construction of an offshore Liquefied Natural Gas shipping terminal that would have been a mere speck on the horizon several miles offshore. And it was deliberately sited way out there for safety - even if it went "BOOM!", at that distance at worst it might crack a few picture windows. In the middle east the excess Natural Gas is a waste byproduct available for cheap. And once it's liquefied it's very economical to transport and use, there are entire city fleets of garbage trucks running on it. LNG would be better for city buses than CNG, the tanks are much smaller and safer than the high-pressure fiberglass wrapped aluminum CNG tanks that take up the entire roof. And you get a bit of refrigeration help from vaporizing the fuel. LNG is easier and safer in use than CNG - the only drawback is there's some boil-off to keep the tank contents cold, so the vehicles have to be used pretty much daily or stored with an empty fuel tank. If not, then they vent a little natural gas from a relief valve. The "Hot Trick" would be to install a little Motorhome style ammonia adsorption refrigerator in the vehicle cab - the burner would consume enough gas to act as a flare tower for the LNG boil-off, and you put the energy to good use keeping lunch and drinking water cold. (Or medications and ice-pack ice in the back of an ambulance, etc.) And with some thermopiles in the flame, you can generate enough electricity to keep the starting batteries topped off and run a fan to keep it cooler in summer - or use that little bit of heat to keep it above freezing in winter. >>Geothermal - Clean Coal - Nuclear. > >Nuclear. We could power everything with it and tell OPEC to go pound >sand ( to put it politely, or to shove their oil where the sun don't >shine ) Well, not *everything*, but a whole lot more than we're doing now - for lighting and motion loads, sure. But it's still more efficient to generate process heat at the load with a fuel, rather than the ineffiencies of long distance electric transmission and resistance heat generation. (And the fuel doesn't have to be oil.) Go look up "Wampfler Inductive Power Transmission", they can put a power strip coil in one lane of the freeway /right now/ and a pickup coil on the bottom of all the Hybrid Cars - shut down the engine and drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas on all electric. Except when you pull out to pass, or off for a Gyro at "The Mad Greek" in Baker. Automatic guidance and braking are in prototype, for practical purposes (and tested so the carmakers don't get their a.ses sued off for any failures) it's a few decades down the road, but the power coupling part of it is here right now. If we get busy and do it - at least get a head start by running power lines all the way along the main routes. Heck, how hard would it be to really scale it up and build Hybrid Semi's and trailers with electric motors in the hubs helping to push, and have them in their own electrified lane? You'd have to scale the power coupling system way up to power a row of trucks, but that still gets us away from OPEC. --<< Bruce >>-- |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message